Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats [UPDATE]

Anita Sarkeesian Cancels Speech Following Terror Threats (UPDATE)

UPDATE (9:13pm): Anita Sarkeesian has cancelled her speech at Utah State University following a terror threat from an anonymous student, according to the school's Twitter account.

Sarkeesian confirmed in a series of tweets this evening:

Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.

— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014

Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn't do firearm searches.

— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014

Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014

I'm safe. I will continue my work. I will continue speaking out. The whole game industry must stand up against the harassment of women. — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014

Original story follows:

Utah State University has enacted security measures following a terror threat this morning in which an anonymous student said he would take "revenge" if a Wednesday event featuring feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian carried on as planned, according to the Utah-based newspaper The Standard Examiner.

The letter, reportedly sent by a Utah State University student this morning, threatened to commit "the deadliest school shooting in American history" if Sarkeesian continues with tomorrow's event, during which she will speak on misogyny and harassment in video game culture.

The university said the event will go on as planned, according to the newspaper. Representatives for the university were not immediately available to confirm this story when reached by Kotaku.

It's yet another horrifying example of the way some people have acted toward Sarkeesian since she launched a Kickstarter to examine feminist tropes in video games back in 2012. Over the past two years, some of Sarkeesian's detractors have barraged her with misogynistic threats and harassment, even going so far as to call bomb threats into the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco earlier this year.

Just a few days ago, Sarkeesian tweeted that she received threats for speaking at an event:

Today marks the 3rd time I've gone on stage after specific death and bomb threats were issued to an event where I'm scheduled to speak.

— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 11, 2014

Sarkeesian has spoken about facing these threats for years now, though they have taken new urgency in light of the much-discussed Gamergate movement, which received a burst of attention over the weekend after death threats drove the game developer and Gamergate critic Brianna Wu out of her home.

There is no mention of Gamergate in the threatening letter sent to Utah State University.


Comments

    Sigh* while i hate this chick and the BS she tries to spew into the world, this isn't cool, not only does it make gamers look like psycho children, it just draws more attention to the drivel she spouts and gives her more publicity.

    Last edited 15/10/14 10:25 am

      and gives her more publicity.

      Not to mention sympathy. They're pretty much proving her point.

      Yeah cause that's the problem here: she gets more publicity. The problem here is people not being able to handle a different point of view.

        In fairness Mark, I don't think @dnr was suggesting that more publicity for Anita is "the problem" (in spite of not agreeing with her views or enjoying her videos), he was simply saying that these kinds of threats against Anita are not only deplorable, they're also largely counterproductive to the purpose of the people making the threats.

        If they wanted people to pay less attention to Anita, they'd ignore her entirely.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

          Fair enough, and also fair enough @dnr. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Anita. I think her voice is super important and we out to be secure enough in our hobby to withstand reasonable criticism of video games.

            I hope you have watched her videos with examples Mark. I did and realised she is a liar and uses false examples. I am the biggest voice for the proper treatment of women but when it comes to Sarkeesian she is a manipulative liar damaging the cause.
            Go see her videos using Bioshock etc - it gets the the point it is offensive to men. She's a hypocrite.

              I find her videos are less about "lying/hypocrisy" but more about "tunnel vision". She has a point and whilst I understand her point the biggest limitation I see from her videos is that it tends to just focus on those "negative" tropes to the detriment of "reasonable" use of tropes. Basically while she may be putting a reasonable criticism of the "negative" context of her examples. She never really expands past "this trope is bad mmkay!" and tends to conflate the "negataive context" of such tropes at times for the sake of her arguments. That's not necessary "lying" or "wrong"... it's just a serverely limited way at looking at a vastly more complicated topic..

              (I know this will open me up to excessive shit flinging) In fact looking at Anita's videos is like looking at the opposite side of the coin for people who bay for blood against "SJW's and the like. Where the constant negativity against "feminism" issues in gaming completely ignores what positive outcome such critical analysis of gaming can bring. Both are guilty of being insanely tunnel visioned on their "POV" that all relevance of discussion is removed.

                Yeah you are right. I tip my hat to you. I just resorted to ignoring her as she is too frustrating for me to be bothered with a coherent criticism anymore. I only spoke up here as Kotaku is full of smart people who would see through it. But I should of put more effort in if I did decide to speak up.
                To see Mark Serrells not see her "tunnel vision" baffles me. I hold him up as the best of the best in Aussie games journalism with Daniel Hindes, David Hollingworth and Nathan Cocks.

                Last edited 16/10/14 11:48 am

                  I don't really see Mark as not seeing the "tunnel vision" per se... just chipping in that outright dismissing the issues brought up by Sarkeesian is poor form. As I said she brings up very legitimate concerns it's just her execution is thoroughly lacking IMHO

                  Sure you may not agree w/ her approach to the issues but it takes some maturity to sit through it analyse it and come to your *own* conclusions and at the same time w/o to resorting to defensive out right dismissals. You don't have to "agree" w/ the opinion to make a critical analysis of the content! And if at the end of the day you still don't agree *but* learn a little something from that opposite point of view then your a much richer person for it!

            She is literally a one trick pony. She isn't a gamer and she certainly shouldn't be standing up for "the harassment of women" in an industry she's only became involved with because it's become lucrative for herself. I know PLENTY of actual gamer women who would actually be able to represent women in the gaming industry but fools like her are dominating it.

            The equivalent would be someone who has no expertise in sport talking about the same topic in sports to people that play sport.. How is anyone supposed to listen to her?

            Fair enough, and also fair enough @dnr. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Jack Thompson. I think his voice is super important and we ought to be secure enough in our hobby to withstand reasonable criticism of video games.

            For years the gaming media outed Jack Thompsons claims that video games caused violence as utter crap. A feminist goes around saying that games cause sexism with the same level of evidence and it's "super important".

        There is no issue with her having a different point of view, i take issue with the way she presents it and the way she comes off.

        She seems to be of the feminist school of thought that 'Equality means to be treated the same as long as women are getting more'.
        Im 100% for equality why should your sex dictate how much you get payed or how your treated? it should be based on skills and ability, yes there are scumbags out there that need to be brought to light and need to be shown they are in the wrong.

        I dont threaten to kill her, or stop her from having her say, this would obviously prove im exactly how she seems to see every male, i just have my own point of view on what she says and why i dislike her... is that not allowed?

        @kermitron pretty much hit the nail on the head, he's obviously more articulate than me :) (not sarcasm)

        Last edited 15/10/14 10:47 am

          "Im 100% for equality why should your sex dictate how much you get payed or how your treated? She seems to be of the feminist school of thought that 'Equality means to be treated the same as long as women are getting more'."

          I'm not aware of her ever pushing this line of thought? Happy if you can prove me wrong though, i'll accept that as I haven't thoroughly looked into it.

          Personally, what i've observed is that her videos largely point out various representations of women in video games that have become tropes. In watching some of the videos i've often felt that yeah, there are some valid points I agree with that I have stopped being aware of due to their prevalence in video games. The latest video was fantastic at outlining this, and rightly received praise.

          The videos often don't necessarily advocate anything in my opinion, rather, it just condenses a few examples and observations, and then begs the rhetorical question, "is this okay? is it right we've stopped noticing this, or its become normalised in this context?"

          I think there is clearly an issue when people overlay their own interpretations and strawmen arguments, to attack with such vitriol and misogynism.

          The whole "gamersgate" thing is pretty disgusting and broadly proves the point that females, and female developers are treated poorly in gaming.

          Last edited 15/10/14 11:14 am

            Respectfully - Rubbish. There are many, many women who are advocates of GamerGate and many, many GGers who've been bullied, doxxed and harassed. Most of the GGer's don't endorse threats and that sort of bullshit.

            In no way condoning any sort of threat of violence against anyone ... she has misrepresented who she is while taking tack with a culture and medium she probably does not understand.

            I think I would like Anita if I met her at a pub. She seems personable and intelligent. And the medium can certainly be criticized, and I personally endorse inclusion and diversity. Kotaku's own Evan Narcisse has done examinations of race in games and comics, but he doesn't shame anyone in the process.

            The problem in this case : though she's presented herself as a long-time gamer, Anita Sarkeesian did not habitually play video games before she started her 'Tropes' series.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afgtd8ZsXzI

            She's not doing anything too different to what Jack Thompson did, but she's smarter and a hipster.

            These culture warriors take it way, way too far, like the guy who recently did a Salon piece on The Legend of Zelda being 'classist, racist and sexist' - asserting that the Kakariko carpenters were an illustration of 'oppressor and oppressed' in a Marxist context ... what the fuck? It's projecting something where nothing exists.

            http://www.salon.com/2013/10/05/the_legend_of_zelda_is_classist_sexist_and_racist/

            Last edited 15/10/14 11:14 am

              "It's projecting something where nothing exists.?"

              Gamersgate: Pot meet kettle?

              But in a more serious response. i don't quite understand what "GamerGate" is actually advocating and why, other than... the status quo? If you could explain it to me, i'm all ears.

              It's just everything i've read so far regarding GG made little sense in what their overarching purpose is.

                I think when he was saying GG'ers, he was referring to 'Girl Gamers'. And I believe the 'creating something where nothing exists' rings quite true.

                We can look at games like Pokemon, all the way back to the original, and if we try hard enough, we can create negative projections as though they are projected by the game itself.

                One could see Pokemon as being a game simply about animal abuse and pit fighting etc. However, when I was playing Red version as an 8 year old, did I see any of that? NO. Did I then want to round up a few neighbourhood Poochyen.....ummm..... pets and force them to fight? NO.

                That's what I got from his comments. Just saying!

                  Fair enough. Although, in the context of his sentence, it appears he is shortening GamersGate to GG. It's a bit ambiguous when reading it with GG being Girl Gamers.

                  I think when he said GGers he meant GamerGaters, not Girl Gamers.
                  Only because, as he said, there have been many GamerGaters (some female, too) who have been bullied, doxxed and harassed.

                Ok. FIrst of all, forgive me for using the word 'rubbish' : that comes across not a little condescending.

                I'm sort of watching this as it goes, too. But I think they are advocating resistance to a culture led by white, upper/middle-class liberal arts 20-something hipsters that uses twitter-storm hysteria and character assassination and public display of moral superiority to shame gamers into feeling like they are pieces of shit.

                They're being called 'anti-woman' and 'racist' when a lot of GGer's are LGBT or women or 'people of color' : see the #Notyourshield hashtag. They are, in effect, resisting 'Social Justice Warrior' culture.

                Edit : Yes, I meant 'GG' as in Gamergate as opposed to 'Girl Gamers'.

                Last edited 15/10/14 12:04 pm

              Also, I think, to more directly respond to points you've raised. There are a number of logical fallacies you've presented:
              1. Just because some GGer's may be women does not make them right. (i.e., do we agree with Sam Jackson's character in Django Unchained due to his race?) This is an example of the "friend fallacy", or the "i'm not racist, i've got a X friend".
              2. She did not habitually play video games. In this instance, it does not make her wrong that she doesn't habitually game. This is a red herring known as "poisoning the well".
              3. You have undertaken another red herring by comparing her to both to Jack Thompson (irrelevant example, known as a false equivalence, also arguably an appeal to emotion) as well as the Legend of Zelda example (also a false equivalence and association fallacy)

                I only tried to interpret what his comment meant from my perspective. I agree with what you say as well. My own perspective of the situation between Anita and a few psychopaths is below.

                1. It doesn't mean they're wrong, either, and it illustrates that the popular narrative - "Neckbeards vs Feminism" - is not sufficient and inaccurate and disingenuous.

                2. It's not a red-herring. It's relevant. It potentially gives us a clue as to the motives of her and her producer : to enter into a medium from an uninformed position and find problems.

                3. No, it's not a false equivalence. It's a similar deal : projecting a world-view onto something and looking for evidence to support your preconceptions.

                Last edited 15/10/14 12:11 pm

                  In terms of 1. Fair enough. I wasn't trying to state or perpetuate the narrative that it is a Neckbeards v Feminism matter. Just that the participants genetics/background etc is irrelevant to the discussion. Both are incorrect. It is irrelevant either way.
                  2. yes it is. It doesn't matter that she didn't game regularly, it does not diminish the content of what she observes. You need to refute the observations and statements, not whether she plays games a lot.
                  3. Yes. by tying it to another article, to detract her statements, you are not debating her statements on their merit. It is a false equivalence.

              "She's not doing anything too different to what Jack Thompson did"

              No.

            I don't agree that the threats she's received are the answer, but I really disagree with Anita's point of view. As @dnr said, "women getting more", the whole point of any of her articles are so focused on the treatment of women, that she completely ignores the fact that everyone else is treated just as bad. She'll focus on a woman getting slapped but genocide is all fine. A girl in revealing clothing is bad, but slavery and racism is perfectly acceptable.

            She claims women are objects - but isn't that what Mattel have been teaching us with Barbie for half a century? And what kid doesn't love the "perfect" image of a woman in Barbie. My two girls love Barbie and I don't have the heart to tell them "you'll never look like Barbie when you grow up, and if you did you'd be treated like an object just like Barbie".

            Take a look at any womens or fashion magazine and you'll see plenty of women as objects. Plenty of men too. You don't see many fat, inadequate men as main characters in a game. You don't see any kind of consequence when you shoot 1000 guys along the sidewalk.

            Its not that she's against women, its like she's actively supporting the killing and mistreatment of men and cultures in video games. Games like Mafia and Saboteur she highlights as women as objects are fairly accurate for the time period where yes, women were treated as objects. While the game is fiction, are we to simply forget history? Maybe we should forget all about Nazism and play games set in Germany in the 40s where you plant flowers and match candy gems.

            Threatening her just brings more publicity to her point of view in that women are more important than anything else in this world. What she should be focusing on is video games really are murder simulators for the human race, sex does not matter.

              She chose the topic of her videos. Lots of people watch them, like them, and enjoy the critical commentary from a perspective they may not have been familiar with. The videos are about the treatment of women because that's what the videos are about.

              the whole point of any of her articles are so focused on the treatment of women, that she completely ignores the fact that everyone else is treated just as bad. She'll focus on a woman getting slapped but genocide is all fine. A girl in revealing clothing is bad, but slavery and racism is perfectly acceptable. Have you considered the possibility that this is because that's THE THING she's focussing on. It's an examination of one element, not examination of everything bad in a thing.

              This is the same criticism that gets trotted out every time someone tries to highlight a minority viewpoint and amounts to "Well not everything is perfect so lets all just try to get along" and then nothing is ever fixed because the status quo is retained, to the benefit of those who already benefit most from the status quo and the minorities continue to get fucked over. Another example is when someone black tries to highlight the way black people tend to be in poverty more than white people then there's bound to be dozens of "oh look at all these poor white people, your argument is invalid!!!!" complaints. Doesn't invalidate the argument at all, it creates noise and distractions, it helps no one but the people who don't want to think about the problem and fucks over the people at the bottom yet again.

              1. "She'll focus on a woman getting slapped but genocide is all fine. A girl in revealing clothing is bad, but slavery and racism is perfectly acceptable. "

              That's not what she is discussing or stating though. She ignores those areas precisely because it's "tropes against women" not "tropes of all the horrific shit in video games".
              It isn't one or the other. It doesn't mean she is wrong because she doesn't also mention something else. It is a logical fallacy to say that her points have no merit because she isn't highlighting other issues.

              2. "She claims women are objects - but isn't that what Mattel have been teaching us with Barbie for half a century? And what kid doesn't love the "perfect" image of a woman in Barbie. My two girls love Barbie and I don't have the heart to tell them "you'll never look like Barbie when you grow up, and if you did you'd be treated like an object just like Barbie"."

              Agreed. That is exactly what is the issue with our current culture that is being highlighted. That is what we are taught implicitly in many forms in our society and culture and it is wrong.

              3. "Its not that she's against women, its like she's actively supporting the killing and mistreatment of men and cultures in video games. Games like Mafia and Saboteur she highlights as women as objects are fairly accurate for the time period where yes, women were treated as objects. While the game is fiction, are we to simply forget history? Maybe we should forget all about Nazism and play games set in Germany in the 40s where you plant flowers and match candy gems."

              No she isn't. She is literally highlighting "Tropes against Women" in videogames.

              4. "Threatening her just brings more publicity to her point of view in that women are more important than anything else in this world. What she should be focusing on is video games really are murder simulators for the human race, sex does not matter."

              Show me where she has explicitly rallied for women being treated above men. I have asked for evidence in my original post. I'm happy to assess it. I just haven't found it myself, or had it presented to me. I've found people SAYING she believes this.

              Last edited 15/10/14 1:45 pm

                Yo, Comban, replying to you here because, shit, I dunno, but props for remaining relatively level headed in this thread, I would have just sworn a shitload at the first person who responded to me, and abandoned the thread forever.

                  Thanks. I take the approach that as long as an argument is kept on logical ground and sound principals discussions will generally be productive.

                  That also means everyone has to acknowledge and be prepared to be wrong.

                  Once a discussion becomes about ego, or 'winning' no one gains more insight.

            Y'know, the portrayal of men in video games is very troubling to me as well. But that is not what Anita's videos are about. The whole "men are objectified too" argument, while 100% correct, is completely irrelevant. Men ARE objectified in media and I hope someone like Anita makes videos bringing those issues to light as well. But that's not Anita's goal here, and her focusing on one issue should not be taken as condoning of every other issue she doesn't cover.

              This video from PBS Game/Show does a pretty good job of covering some of the problems with how video game stereotypes can hurt men:

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrActT_7X6U

                I've seen it. Great video, too! There needs to be more stuff like this.

                Also. He's lucky he doesn't have a whole bunch of angry women sending him death threats for daring to highlight these issues!

                Last edited 15/10/14 10:30 pm

          She seems to be of the feminist school of thought that 'Equality means to be treated the same as long as women are getting more'.

          Please show us anything she's written or said that even comes close to showing this.

          Im 100% for equality why should your sex dictate how much you get payed or how your treated? it should be based on skills and ability, yes there are scumbags out there that need to be brought to light and need to be shown they are in the wrong.

          Exactly what the point of feminism is. Women over and over get paid less than men for the same work. People assume that women are less capable and treat them that way. But when women point this out "they want more than men". No, women want the same treatment as men. And they don't get it. That's why we still need a Workplace Gender Equality Agency in Australia. https://www.wgea.gov.au/

          i just have my own point of view on what she says and why i dislike her... is that not allowed?

          Of course it's allowed. Is anyone trying to shut you up? No. Is anyone threatening you? Not here. It's a discussion, and people are pointing out where they disagree.

            1. Its in the way she presents herself and the far reaches she makes with a LOT of her videos/comment, its my interpretation based on observation. (which i'm entitled to).

            2. You agreed with me so no issue.
            I know sexism exists, and it needs to be fixed, i just think this woman is doing more harm to the gaming industry than she is good for the eradication/awareness of sexism. the ONLY good i see coming of her being in the limelight is discussions that come from it like the ones on sites like this, it allows people to have there say and see the other side, which is great.

            3. There was a point to that sentence, i wanted to see how many people would downvote/have a go at me based on preconceptions that i was being negative without cause, i wanted to find the hypocrites :D (turns out that today most people here are in a understanding mood)

              So it's not what she's saying it's how she's saying it...? Sure you're entitled to this opinion, but I've never seen anything that makes her seem like she wants anything more than some of the more sexist tropes to be recognised and used less often.

              It's hard to argue the women are arguing for more than men when they've not got the same as men...

              Your 3 responses are bang on the money dude. 1. is exactly why I find her offensive. She needs to be ignored so men and women who really understand what is wrong can be a fair and rational voice for the actual cause.

        I agree Mark,

        The main issue here, is that there is an issue at all. If she wants to talk about feminism, or lack thereof in video games, and I really don't care/want to know about it? I simply won't attend/watch/listen etc....

        Even if I really dislike her, and/or her point of view, it hardly warrants the threat of physical violence to her or others. Warranted violence is a very touchy subject, and a subject that certainly won't find it's bearings on this article.

        My point of view, as a gamer is probably disagreed upon by many, many people.
        For example; All COD games post COD:MW are garbage, Driver San Francisco was bloody awesome I thought, EA is a fantastic company who make brilliant games and need more support from the public, I don't care that heists don't exist yet in GTA Online it's still fun, Battlefield Hardline will exceed expectations....... I can go on.

        Does anyone disagree with any of the above? If so, should I be threatened with explosives or physical violence? NO.

        I fear, that like many devs and publishers, this will start to become the normal way of 'trolling'. I fear that editors, whether they be at GameSpot, Kotaku, IGN, Game Informer etc, will soon become the targets of these kind of threats. "You reviewed this game, I think it deserved a better review"... - Threat ensues.

        I don't know how so many can criticise the behaviour of known terror organisations, when they themselves are so willing to adopt the same tactics to get their own way.

        The problem here is people not being able to handle a different point of view.

        Precisely. Since when did gaming become it's own religion?

          Nice. Extend the question: why do so many human pursuits get so polarised, tribal and ossified?

          Why are groups so determined to protect the group in a way that harms individuals and protects bad behaviour? See it over and over again; other than the most heinous examples of the covering up of abuse in various churches and other religious organisations, and the abuse and ostracisation of people who dare to suggest that maybe starting public meetings with a Christian prayer is somewhat biased, there's this blow-up in gaming; also in atheism/sceptism; regularly in sports (Kurtley Beale latest example, team-mates rally round the "good bloke", but the Penn State abuse and the Steubenville rapists spring to mind); in politics...

          Humans are really good at being shitty to one another, and even better at circling the wagons and covering it up.

        The Internet is both the best and worst thing to ever happen to public discussion. On the one hand, we're able to be exposed to so many more ideas and points of view than ever before, which I think makes for a much more interesting conversation. On the other hand, it's also enabled people to have screaming tantrums like spoiled children at anything they don't personally agree with, and they've learned that if they scream loud enough nobody will be able to hear any other point of view over the noise.

      "this chick"? *facepalm*

        Would Androgynous human form have been better?
        I don't get the issue... surly you use words like Mate, dude, chick in your every day life when talking about people? do you mean it in a derogatory way? because i sure as hell don't.

          'woman' works.

            Attacking the instance level of an interaction is why feminism if often compared to fascism. Too much too fast is causing progression to simply target an individual not culture or social structure. The whole stop doing that, do it my way doesn't address any issue, it just causing a syntactical change that will be temporal at best, not to mention such a style of attack will always receive resistance.

            Feminism is wrought with these miscommunications and misdirection that it weakens the movement as a whole. While I don't agree with Anita but I must acknowledge that due to her works being defended and argued by her supporters who have no where near the understanding and background that I assume Anita has, only provides points of attack for opposition to attack that are founded on very limited understanding of her supporters and not on the actual sustenance of Anita's work.

            Just because the issue SEEMS approachable, doesn't mean you should weigh in. Leave the arguing to the experts and a much more solid foundation and progress will occur.

              This. I learned that lesson when I weighed in on this topic many moons ago.

              I just figure something like "If there is a market for it, eventually, it will be filled."

              Accompanied with

              "Threats and violence are not the answer to the problem."

          "Chick" is belittling. Being overly familiar (calling women by first names or diminutives) when a man in the same position would get referred to by full name or title is really common, and it's an unconscious way that women's contributions are habitually dismissed.

            So you are saying that when YOU use the term chick you mean it in a derogatory way?
            If she was a man, i'd have said bloke, or dude its not a "belittling" term its how i speak, expecting me to change the way i speak because you have made up in your mind that its an insult is a bit rich.

            Your argument is invalid.

              The very first comment on an article about how a prominent blogger and academic is getting death threats for saying "hey, how about we have a bit less sexism in games", and she's referred to as "this chick."

              This is what I'm talking about: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jul/30/10-sexist-scenarios-women-deal-work-ignored-maternity-risk-everyday-sexism

              Constant subconscious marginalisation. Everyday sexism.

              expecting me to change the way i speak because you have made up in your mind that its an insult is a bit rich.

              If I had your personal details I could try to force you to change the way you speak with a bomb/massacre/whatever threat. Nobody is forcing you to do anything by talking to you, just expressing their free speech, Something Ms Sarkeesian is denied.

      Sigh* while i hate this chick

      "hate"? some people really need some perspective.

    What do these idiots actually think her threat is? And as if mainstream media wouldn't have a frigging field day if a "gamer" murdered a woman for speaking about violence against women.

      They aren't bright enough to consider that possibility.

      That's she's going to personally come into their homes and take their toys away from them?

      Like Obama is about to roadtrip across America and take everyone's guns and infect them with Ebola while they sleep.

      People are friggen insane.

        Can you imagine if this was all happening in Australia? Some woman from Wagga Wagga starts the exact same campaign, and gamers don't like it. It'd be like, "Aww eff off ya dumb slag," and that'd be it.
        .
        .
        .
        I hope.

          Well I live in wagga, if it got any worse than that I could just intimidate them into a urine soaked silence

      I'm pretty sure that all that Gamergate is going to do is illuminate idiocy. This stuff is coming out of the online echo chambers - and the bright light of day tends to melt stupid.

      There are all sorts of things to be concerned about, but they need to be looking at advertising dollars and junkets and all sorts of real actual issues in gaming and gaming journalism. Thing is the corrupt macho hype machine is almost what these guys seem to be wanting to hold onto. The real hatred and anger is towards anyone who might want to bring gaming into a wider academic or social context, and ESPECIALLY if that person is a woman.

      The vitriol spewed at Ms Quinn and the invasion of her life and privacy is a horrendous example of how out of touch these guys are. None of the great conspiracies make any kind of sense to anyone with the vaguest experience of business and/or life.

      All this nonsense will not survive sustained exposure to the wider world, no matter how good these guys are at arguing on forums against vague feminist bogeywomen. I mean this whole debacle started because an ex-boyfriend of a female game developer posted all sorts of wild claims about her sex life. It continues with people being forced to cancel events or leave their homes because of threats and harassment.

      Whatever more moderate message the gamergate guys are trying to put out, the same targets still seem to remain. And words like "hate" remain in the more moderate message, as per dnr above.

    One can only hope that these kids will grow up and 10 years from now look back on all this with overwhelming shame. The other 5%... well shit I don't know, how do you normally deal with violent sociopaths?

      thing is they arent kids these are grown adults do this and its bullshit. I lay all the blame entirely on soical media because while its great that everyone now has voice, it means that fucktwads are now able to spout their bullshit to an audience that will believe it

        I doubt these death threats would be coming from people if they couldn't hide behind a screen name. If when she got a threat she knew it was Daryl Samson of 846 Evergreen Terrace (A made up if familiar name and address) I think Mr D. Samson wouldn't actually have the balls to say it.

        Despite the fact I use a Screen Name because I value my privacy I never threaten people and nothing I've said here would I be afraid of saying in public or in the center of the CBD under a big sign with the post written on it.

        This sort of behavior just proves John Gabriels G.I.F.T. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

    I just can't. I really can't even care anymore. I hope the guy gets arrested and everyone hears about it. Or just blows up the whole thing. I don't care. Fuck it. Its just never ending... The neverdning threats and bs. I hate the media for this as a whole.

    Same applies to other problems in the world. Just don't care. The media often twists this shit and it's just on and on. Feels like you are just milking a dead cow. Can we get some interesting news. That article yesterday about people regretting killing game characters was awesome. So interesting and fun. This. This is just the same thing that's been happening the past few months.

    I know it needs to be brought to light, but something needs to be done about it. This isn't doing shit.

    I don't understand what's wrong with these people. Holy damn.

    I bet it's her or an associate of hers doing this shit for more publicity. This is only hurting the gaming community and proving her argument.

      Yes, it's much more likely to be a conspiracy, rather than the group of nutjobs who have been engaged in a protracted harassment campaign against her for the past two years. Good job.

      Here. Have this tinfoil hat...

        tinfoil fedora*

          I'd tip my tinfoil fedora, but I might bend the tinfoil brim.

            Plus, if you tip it too far you might just give those feminist satellites an opening.

          conspiracy intensifies

    I really hope one day these people realise that someone saying things they don't like about a hobby of theirs just isn't important. I just can't think of anything I could be less upset about. I generally disagree with Anita's videos but for fuck's sake, my video games aren't being threatened by her having a fucking opinion. She's opening a dialogue and the dicsussion is at least worth having, you idiots.

      saying things they don't like about a hobby of theirs just isn't important

      I don't like your games having explosions!

        I don't like your comments mentioning explosions. Or having an '!'.

    While I don't agree with EVERYTHING she says in her videos, I do find her arguments interesting. I suppose it's because I don't fall into the typical white male line of thinking anyways. Being queer, and a gamer, I suppose I see things slightly differently. But more to the point, I enjoy these types of arguments and discussions. I love to see differing points of view on pretty much anything - it helps keep one's mind open to all manner of possibility.

      YES!!! Silencing people is never the answer. To have a truly open mind is to absorb as many points of view as possible. When this happens your mind expands and you can be opened up to greater personal potential. Unfortunately, most people show up with a closed mind.

        It also doesn't help that it's the apparently the 'exceedingly altruistic' policy of the GamerGate Taliban. Open minds are just a hindrance you see...

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0AO1hnCYAA6XGg.jpg

      I don't know... I'm a straight white male and I feel pretty much the same way you do about her videos. I've always felt that the underlying cause of all this crap is that lots of people don't know how to take criticism. Just because she has some critical things to say about your favourite thing doesn't mean she's attacking you. Or even your favourite thing. Even the best things have flaws and the world is a better place if we can acknowledge them.

      Also probably because she's associated with "feminism", which seems to be a massive shit magnet.

        Of course I didn't mean to imply that that was the only reason I'm open-minded about these things, just that it could be an additional factor :)

          It certainly will give you an appreciation for certain types of privilege that others with more privilege may struggle to recognise.

            Indeed, it does. Although my brain seems to be wired to work that way anyways, so that helps :)

      Debate is good. Discussion is good. And I likewise don't agree with everything she says - some of her examples are a bit of over-reach. Her overall project of pointing out tropes in games is a good one and it's eye-opening how often the same tropes are used over and over. A few hours browsing tvtropes.org is also very illuminating. Once one knows a few tropes, one can't miss them in future.

      It's the polarisation that gets me. Life is grey. She's right on some stuff, less right on others and plain wrong on some things. None of this justifies anyone trying to shut her down or threaten her. Trying to silence people is not the answer (with very strict exceptions, like direct incitement/threat of violence or harm). I vehemently disagree with a lot of people, and my response to that is to point out or explain why they're wrong or maybe (shockhorror) downvote them... Maybe even some ridicule if what they're saying is egregious nonsense. But namecalling, threats or abuse, no.

        I was going to edit my comment a little while ago to mention exactly what you said about life being grey! Bang on the money with that one. I couldn't imagine anything more depressing than a world-view that consists only of black and white extremes.

      When these videos first came out I was talking about them on a forum, not even that positively, just talking about some of her points and that they were interesting etc.. and I started to get derided.. then I realised they thought I was a woman.. when I pointed out I wasn't the tone of the ones being jerks changed pretty significantly, more "oh maybe you have a point" than "Pfft everything you say is BS", pretty interesting.

        Sadly, an all-too common thing to come across on the interwebs.

    I really don't understand what the hell is going on? How and why are the people issuing these threats SO offended?

    Someone says some things about videogames that is a different viewpoint to yours and you threaten to kill them AND innocent people? Huh? How does that even make sense?

    If this "person" (quotation marks since they hardly deserve that title) did this thing for GamerGate, well they're certainly not helping it.

    Let's hope they get caught, huh? Police find these types of people, don't they?
    Please tell me they do.

    edit: testing a theory

    Last edited 15/10/14 12:52 pm

    I wrote a big spiel but I delted it, because the entire paragraph can be surmised with this:
    People suck.

      I don't want to delete mine! However, I'm not sure anyone will be bothered to read it....

    She should go ahead with the speech. Probably a fake threat, I highly doubt anyone would go that far over Anita's talks.

      The last guy to threaten her was in Brazil! While I'm not sure you shouldn't take bomb threats seriously, it was PROBABLY a load of nothing.

      Better safe than sorry though, right?

      She cancelled it because despite the claim, people are still legally allowed to carry concealed weapons to the event.

        ugh fucking US gun rights >< and yeah i heard about that guy from brazil. apprently he was doing it so he could report on it or something for clickbait views or other bullshit

        Yeah. She's gone ahead in the face of threats before, but when nobody's going to stop anyone from walking right into the auditorium with an assault rifle until they actually open fire, I'd say caution makes sense.

    Oh Feminist Frequency? Yawn. Find me when that's about actual equality. The more you threaten her, the better off she is at pushing her point.

    Alternatively. She gets threatened so much, I'd almost believe she sets it up herself to prove her point. But without evidence for that, merely stating it will probably get me metaphorically shot. So meh.

      So how was getting dropped on your head as a baby? fun?

        Disagreeing with him is one thing, insulting him for insulting somebody else doesn't really work. You can't claim the Moral High Ground when your standing up to your knees in the mud next to him.

          Perhaps he was insulting himself with a sock puppet account to smear people who might disagree with him? I've got no reason to believe that he'd do such a thing, but there is a non-zero probability that this is the case.

    As a male gamer, I like her. I hope she keeps doing what she's doing and goes places on her life.

    I don't have time to write a long drawn out, well-thought post(s) - so I'll just say I agree with dnr 100%!

    He's pretty much said everything I would have anyway. b^_^

      Yeah he is a top bloke.Saved me the effort too. Especially when someone does it more articulately then I could of.
      I do not mean bloke in a belittling way <- see what I did there?

        Yes with quotes such as "I hate this chick", he's so articulate.

          Yes lets dismiss all the valid well written criticism due to one colloquialism he used.

            Yeah, it's criticism, but it's not really valid at all. His point is arguing the distraction, the "It's not her message, it's the way she presents it" line. With all due respect to DNR, it's a commonly repeated, yet horeseshit argument. If this whole affair were an issue of quality, maybe so, but given the nasty, hatefully, sexually aggressive threats that are often thrown around whenever she pops up in the media, I think it's an almighty stretch to suggest it's because the gaming community are real sticklers for presentation style...

    It's depressing that every day we hear "We will not give in to terror!", but every day it gets easier and easier to manipulate things via terror and playing on paranoia. It makes this whole thing even worse in that someone has decided to exploit that fact for their own pathetic agenda. Have your own opinions about the lady, but don't make everyone else's life miserable because you think no one else should disagree.

    Last edited 15/10/14 8:22 pm

      The big problem is these people sending death threats don't see themselves as Terrorists. And I think they are, in my mind they are willing to kill people who disagree with their point of view and that's as bad as any other Terrorist on the planet such as ISIS.

      She probably sent the death threats to herself. She has been known to do this in the past.

      At the start of the year she claimed that she had threats of sexual violence then immediately posted a link to her gofundme.

      It is obvious that she is gouging idiots away from their hard earned cash.

    Geez some of these comments are embarrassing. Remember when those Danish cartoonists drew Mohammad and it sparked riots and deaths and the cartoonists had to go into hiding? Imagine you're reading an article about it and half the comments are complaining about the cartoonists - "I hate them", "they probably made the threats up", etc. Yeah, that's basically what this is like.

    It just shows what an explosive topic feminism is. Even if Anita had been criticising video games because they're too violent, it never would have blown up like this. Even the mere existence of lengthy rebuttals to her videos show how defensive people are on the subject.

    Last edited 15/10/14 11:25 pm

      The cartoonists did not actually draw Mohammed. They drew an Arabic looking bearded man with a bomb in his turban. No names on the drawing.
      It was the Muslims who were offended, who declared that the man in the turban was Mohammed.

    Personally, I respect Anita for what she's done. I don't agree with much she has said but I believe it has value and worth. I believe it scares a lot of people because it hits close to home in some cases. That being said, like I said I don't agree with a lot of it still.

    *Edit* My disbelief in what she's said actually has more to do with *how* it's presented rather than the actual content itself which I believe has basis in fact rather than fantasy as some reactionaries like to believe. I believe it's presented in just as an extreme manner as her detractors in some cases, however I do concede, this is usually done to hammer home the point. Oh well.
    *Edit finished*

    BUT, she has the right to voice her opinion without fear of reprisal and those who try to take that away from her are just... there's no words for how pathetic they are.

    Last edited 16/10/14 9:11 am

    I wish police agreed to cooperate quietly and they followed through and actually captured this maniac (if there was actually a maniac and not just some random Internet troll that never intended to do anything). The fact that the threat was publicised and the event cancelled simply carries the message that these kinds of threats are actually effective.

    Read this: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/396468,intel-pulls-advertising-caves-to-gamergate-pressure.aspx?eid=6&edate=20141003&utm_source=20141003&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=gaming_newsletter&nl=gaming

    As an outsider to this whole GamerGate nonsense, I've taken away the following from reading bits and pieces about it:

    > Anita Sarkeesian criticises the medium's portrayal of women.
    > People get so upset by it death threats ensue.

    On what planet is that appropriate behaviour? The amount of mouthbreathing vitriol leveled at this woman is unacceptable and nonsensical.

      A perfect, bullshit-free summary of the entire situation.

    the little girl who cried wolf........ over and over again.

    Last edited 17/10/14 4:35 am

      Except it was the University who released the statement, and Ms Sarkeesian didn't find out about it until after it had already hit the news.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now