It’s been another fantastic few days in the fabricated GamerGate terror campaign. This past weekend, female game developer Brianna Wu was forced to alert the police and leave her home, after receiving threats that she, her family, and possible children would face rape, mutilation, and death. Wu has vowed to not bow to the terrorist threats, and will continue to develop games.
Wu’s ordeal was just the last in a long line of GamerGate terrorism, and yesterday we reached a new low.
Gaming critic Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to hold a talk at Utah State University. However, GamerGate terrorists threatened to enact “the largest school shooting in American history” if the talk were to take place. The contents of the terrorist threat are horrific, and fit the general tone of GamerGate terrorism; threats of rape, murder, mutilation, the usual stuff, but now also with mass murder, automatic rifles, and pipe bombs.
Sadly, the GamerGate terrorists have won, because of concealed carry laws in Utah. Sarkeesian asked the police to perform pat-downs and check for firearms so she would not get murdered, but the police told her that if someone has a valid firearm permit for concealed carry, they are allowed to bring the weapons to the talk. As a result, Sarkeesian was forced to cancel the talk to ensure she and attendees would not get murdered.
And so, these people have successfully employed terrorism to stifle free speech. These GamerGate terrorist threats will continue, because sadly, there is very little that can be done to stop them. Sarkeesian – and several other women who have received terrorist threats from GamerGate supporters – have vowed to continue doing their work.
At this point, we’re essentially just waiting for the first GamerGate supporter to murder someone. We like to think of terrorism as something done by outsiders, something imported from other countries or cultures. However, these GamerGate threats are just as much terrorism – we just hate calling it that because it hits too close to home.
Meanwhile, we’re hearing very little – if nothing – from large game companies and distributors. These companies and distributors should, of course, take a stand against GamerGate terrorism, but they also know full well that they might lose business over it. So, they decide to shut up. Will it take an actual murder before they speak up?
“we’re essentially just waiting for the first GamerGate supporter to murder someone” – I’m not sure this will happen. The people making the threats seem how effective they are, so there’s no need to follow up on the threats. In fact, I think most of these threats are made by trolls hiding in their dungeons from whence they never leave physically. That’s not to say precautions must be taken, of course, but I think it’ll stick to this: just threats.
Yes, you have a thousand trolls who won’t leave their bridge, but then you have the genuine mad man who believes all these threats the community it throwing around and goes out and actually kills someone shouting “hey everybody, look, I really showed them!”
The chances of some unstable person acting out are higher because the media takes both sides seriously. Both sides are a joke and should be ignored or, at best, ridiculed. Thanks, media, for raising the level of discourse. Good job as usual. Now I’m off to visit your roadkilltshirts.com banner ad.
Personally, I don’t see what’s ridiculous about campaigning to change the representation of women in games (or other media for that matter).
It’s ridiculous because it’s a path for ridiculous people. Changing the representation of others is easy and glamorous. Changing the substance of oneself is neither.
Ads here (and on most websites) are based on your own browsing habbits. For example, I recently bought some Zenni eye glasses, my wife searched for a bra, and I checked out some AI based web design platform. It’s not surprising that I get ads for exactly those three things on just about every website.
So, if you are getting ads for roadkillshirts.com – they are YOUR ads.
With weapons being so readily available in the US, I’m not so sure. I hope you’re right – let’s all hope you’re right – but it seems the situation is only escalating instead of de-escalating.
Want to take any chances?
No I don’t, although I see I forgot a “not” in the sentence “That’s not to say precautions must be taken”.
i agree with others, there have been shootings in america for less, i would be worried if i had to do one of the talks.
Hopefully. But if someone threatened you and your family, and had your address, would you be so sure? I wouldn’t. Hopefully it is this though, just a bunch of posturing.
Honestly, I don’t understand what the hell is going on here… is this really what people are taking their time to do?
I’ve faced death threats on the internet
and thanks to the infinite wisdom of the austrian government I’m forced to put my name and adress on my homepage
my solution was to just ignore it
Besides that one crazy Austrian, I don’t believe you are in as much trouble as you would have been in US. US has a serious problem in dealing with mental health issues and compared to Europe is riddled by crazy psychopaths roaming the streets freely.
Or worse yet, holding elected office. *sigh*
This, and worse. But it’s a good thing, imho, to show that even on OSnews, which one would expect has a tech-minded audience and not so much a gamer audience, has its fair amount of misguided, sexists gamers.
What I want to know is this…why does everyone keep blaming Gamergate when anybody can claim they are a part of Gamergate. Does this mean I can speak for Obama because I’m an American? Can I speak for all white people too?
We don’t say that “Anonymous said” this or that because its obvious there is no spokesman therefor anybody on either side can claim to be Anonymous so that is reflected in the reporting, IE “A person claiming to be from anonymous” said this or that…so why are we not seeing the same when it comes to Gamergate?
This frankly just makes the press look that much worse, like they are trying to manipulate the conversation by claiming every whacko that uses the Gamergate hashtag as part of some organized group.. does that mean they accept that “reporters” for Aryan nation can speak for them too? After all they ARE all claiming to be reporters, right?
Of course, it will take a murder. And even with that, not much will happen, except a lot a cross-finger-pointing and very little soul-searching.
The villent, sadistic, amoral, macho American culture is completely f*cked up. Let them devour themselves, and be an example of what should not be acceptable elsewhere.
Hey, as was said, (by certain individuals,) after EACH of the past mass-shooting incidents in the US, ‘it’s not the time to have a discussion about gun-violence, with these wounds in our national psyche so fresh and bleeding…’
We’re overdue for another one, statistically, and that’s NOT the time to have a discussion about this, while our pre-grief is so fresh, we should instead be focusing on getting ready to heal after the next, easily preventable, mass-murder.
Like Lewis Carroll wrote, “The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but never jam today.” We sit down and have a rational discussion about gun violence tomorrow, yesterday, but never today. It’s no one’s fault but your own if you can’t remember the last major national discussion about this lunacy… after all, it was only yesterday that we talked about this.
Truth is, and all sarcasm aside, we don’t have, I believe, a gun violence problem in the United States of America. We have a VIOLENCE problem. It’s not limited to injuries and deaths caused by people with guns, it’s just that that’s what makes the news because a gun is a machine that like so many modern conveniences of our age, simplifies certain things, and expands capabilities. Like any other tool man has invented, it takes a person’s ability to maim and kill and extends it in range, and reduces the time it takes to do it. With his bare hands, a man might kill a dozen or so people in a day, depending on how good he is at killing, and how much bigger and stronger he is than his (or her… hahahahah) victims.
(I laugh not because women aren’t capable of killing, or doing so with their bare hands, but you know… statistics.)
With a gun, even a tiny weakling can murder dozens of people in, given the right circumstances, a few minutes or even seconds. You might think this is the word of Captain Obvious, but a deeper point can be missed if we dismiss this idea so. The reason we have the seeming epidemic of gun-violence in America is ONLY because guns are readily available, relatively inexpensive and easy to operate, and confer upon their users the ability to commit targeted killings.
If OTHER means of mass-murder were as easy and trivial to obtain and use, or facilitated killing more people in less time or for less money, we’d be seeing a LOT more of THAT type of killing, especially if our “leaders” (again, hahaha,) saw to it that getting and keeping the means for such killing were as well protected legally as it is for guns and ammunition.
What I’m saying is, if for every gun shop and show, there were places that sold bombs, and if the right to keep and bear arms were read to include them as well, we’d be seeing nonsense like what happened in Boston, ALL. THE. TIME. We’d see it all over the place, and cities like LA, NYC, and pretty much everywhere with a populace over 10,000 people would look a lot like Baghdad. Maybe even less populous places.
The implication of this fact is that our “right” to keep and bear arms is considered too important to challenge by our bought-and-paid-for, useless, cowardly “lawmakers”. The lives of the now ludicrous number of victims of gun-violence are held to be less valuable than the support of all the gun-toting, psychotic lunatics out there.
Before you reply to tell me I’m a c*#mie, p*#ko, c*#ks*#king fa&&ot, or wherever… I will tell you that I am a veteran of TWO foreign wars, and served in the Global War “on” Terror. Repeatedly, honorably, and with distinction. I have medals and s*#t for my s*#vice.
That said, I will finish with a brief bit on why this insanity needs to stop, and write it as if spoken directly to a gun-toting lunatic.
Your massive cache of weapons and ammunition is not what keeps us free. The US government could steamroll you, and everyone who looks like you, ‘thinks’ like you, and acts like you in a HEARTBEAT. You could hole-up in your “compound” like the wackos in Waco and if they REALLY became as tyrannical and evil as you seem to think they are, they’d just take you out with a drone-fired cruise missile, and you’d never see the faces of the men who killed you, sitting safe and sound thousands of miles away in Arizona, or Virginia, or wherever they’re based. Got it? The US government isn’t impressed by or afraid of you, or your guns. Not even a little bit.
The reason the Founding Fathers included that right was because in the VERY different world of 1787, it was necessary. Their concerns seemed to have been that a newly strengthened government of which they were VERY frightened heading a loose coalition of “states” that only a dozen years before had REBELLED against a strong central authority could become like the one they just fought off, England.
Back then, the government could EASILY have been toppled, and if out of fear of being toppled, it decided to “round up the guns,” they’d leave Americans defenseless against the very real and present threats of marauding, vengeful bands of natives, (or “Indians,” as they were called,) Spanish soldiers in what became Florida, French troops from the west in what became Louisiana, etc., or English troops still occupying colonies to the north in what became Canada, and on ships at sea that treated American ships as if America were still very much colonies for another two dozen YEARS.
They wanted to make sure the newly strengthened central government that was still too weak and inexperienced to defend them couldn’t, out of an overzealous desire not to be toppled, take their means of self-defense away. We no longer live in such a world. In fact, the ONLY EXCUSE for why we still need to have ANY guns in most places is that WE HAVE GUNS there. It’s an ironic need.
We can’t, obviously, ban guns outright, but maybe we can institute common-sense restrictions to reign-in, however slowly, their overabundance and have a safer, more peaceful nation as a result. I don’t think we can or should ignore, while I’m on the subject, the fact that we are seeing an epidemic of COP ON CITIZEN violence, especially in our more crowded cities. Cities are becoming ever more crowded, and so the trend will continue. Why do cops act so much like soldiers? Why is there so much of THIS going on?
Perhaps it’s because increasingly, in a culture so full of guns and gun-toting lunatics, cops are getting a mass case of PTSD. That’s PRE-Traumatic Stress Disorder, where they respond to the POTENTIAL for death and destruction by becoming not reactive, but proactive. Since however, they can’t tell WHO will try to shoot them, they treat EVERYONE as if they’re criminals, and that’s, I think, why we see what we do.
What’s the answer? Well, no change to the constitution is necessary to put restrictions on AMMO, since it’s the right to keep and bear ARMS, not AMMO. Does “arms” include “ammo”? That may end up being decided by the courts if it hasn’t been already.
Another way to solve this might be to impose larger and larger taxes on bullets, or even require insurance, (like liability coverage required to be carried by drivers of cars,) to cover the damage caused if a gun is fired. Require them to carry Bodily Injury AND Property Damage coverage, maybe. After all, a gun can do as much damage as a car, and a car isn’t MADE for drilling holes in people at a distance and killing them. A gun IS.
You can try to dress it up however you like, but a gun has one use. It fires bullets. Can someone kill with something else as readily available? Sure, but not as quickly or efficiently.
Edited 2014-10-15 13:43 UTC
I think we need to ban knives. they are quiet, they never run out of ammunition, dozens can be fatally wounded in a short time, they can be made of materials that pass metal detectors, you can carry many many knives on your person. Really they are crazy deadly.
Not even a year ago some teen at a hichschool stabbed 20 people. 20!
He didn’t have to reload, he didn’t have a high capacity magazine, he had an endless supply of knife.
Knives aren’t even protected by the constitution and no one ever brings up the danger they pose to the safety of our children. They sell them on TV and even farmers markets and you don’t even need a background check.
I think any discussion of gun violence is disingenuous without also discussing the epidemic of knife violence. It’s in our schools! And not one single person discusses this alarming issue.
Otherwise it’s as though people don’t really care about the deaths, or injuries, or the mayhem to their fellow human beings. It’s as if those murdered by knife violence don’t count.
It’s as if they only want to get rid of guns and who cares about the people who are murdered and maimed by knives, or will be murdered by someone with a knife.
Disgraceful
Murrysville? Zero fatality.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26982015
It wouldn’t have been the same with some nice lead bullets.
Knives are a vey inefficient way to kill.
By the way, having a knife on you in many parts of Europe is grounds for arrest and prison.
Now, knives are also used for cooking, not just killing. Do you need a gun for anything else than killing?
So wounding someone is okay.
they are cheaper than guns and cheaper even than bullets and they are reusable. They are easier to hide and make no noise. They leave no forensic evidence on the user. They require less training to use.
That must be why there are no murders with knives in Europe, and no stabbings in Europe either. Sounds like a marvelous model of violence prevention.
You assume incorrectly that knives are “needed” for cooking. With today’s advances in food processing, knives could be all but eliminated. I would allow for certain knives of short length and insufficient strength such that they couldn’t be used to penetrate a body cavity.
No, that’s exactly what guns do. They kill. Although they do kill food and predators including people predators.
I would prefer to have a gun though, until I can be assured that no one else will have one either. It sucks when you’re disadvantaged.
And also I’d like to know that someone physically stronger than myself, or multiple assailants wouldn’t try to harm me. I know it’s extraordinarily rare for a few attackers to invade someones home, or for a larger man to hurt a smaller man or woman. And even though you rarely if ever hear about the unusual case of psychopaths, or people with anger management issues, drunkards, and just plain bad people who like to hurt others (I’m sure they exist), a gun would be handy in those cases.
I know also that police are often on the scene very quickly in almost all circumstances, and even if they are not, neighbors are generally quick to act in defense of other neighbors. So while really no one ever needs a gun, I’d prefer to have one, just in case, at least until knives are banned.
Dude, stop trolling. Knifes don’t compare to guns in any way, shape, or form.
They may not compare to hand guns, but knife violence kills more people than shotguns and rifles combined.
I think that’s worthy of comparison, especially when you consider that so-called assault weapons are in fact rifles.
It kind of really drives home my point (no pun intended) when you know that knife violence kills more people than assault weapons.
Edited 2014-10-15 15:55 UTC
Really? Than let’s look at the *facts*, instead of something some random loser shouts on the interwebz, shall we?
The very first two links when googling for “us death by knife”:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdere…
They show you that the ratio of guns:knives in 2012 was 8:1! Eight times more people killed by guns than by knives! Perhaps you ought to check the figures first, before writing down such easily disproved drivel.
You are both shouting past each other – you are discussing “firearms”, which includes handguns, while he’s discussing “assault rifles” (so called), which don’t.
The USA banned “assault rifles” (which I disparagingly define as “anything that scares Dianne Feinstein”, a notable proponent of the ridiculously convoluted and arbitrary law) in 1994. The ban ended in 2004, largely because it had no measurable effect on the crime rate, given that long guns are rarely used to commit crimes in the USA.
Private gun ownership has become increasing well-protected by American courts over the past 20 years. Simultaneously, murders involving guns have steadily declined in America, from 17,075 in 1993 to 10,869 in 2011, a drop of 36%, while the national population increased by 20%. See http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx.
The bottom line is that American society is simply more violent as a whole than European society, for many historical and cultural reasons. However, contrary to silly talk here about rampant violence and disintegrating society, most Americans never experience violence at all – which is why support for overturning the 2nd amendment is now at a record low 26%.
Enough facts – here’s my opinion. It seems to me that animals who live in zoos have significantly longer lives than those who live in the wild. But I find zoos to be rather sad. Personally, I’d rather live a somewhat shorter life of liberty in the wild than a somewhat longer life of protection in a zoo.
Glad I have that choice, and I’ll respect yours if it if differs from mine.
Perfect! So ban handguns, for more effective defensive rifles and shotguns.
PS: More people get killed by blunt objects than rifles, so if I we you I’d continue on that route and say that until all blunt objects are padded with soft material we should all use guns! It’s the perfect all-or-nothing argument.
So you are only counting some firearms to make your case? Seriously?
The facts for those interested… http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in…
Firearms kill about 10x more people then knifes (which 100% people own). Knife homicides have also dropped way more significantly then gun homicides over the years.
Thinking you are just more ignorant then a troll now…
Given a stand-off with a psychopath, I would rather he had a knife than a gun. My survival chances are immensely higher with a knife.
But sure… saying that not dying is better than dying, is same as saying that stabbing is OK. /s
That is actually not true. Even the food processor has knives.
With a gun, whenever somebody pulls one on you – you are already disadvantaged, regardless of whether you have one in your pocket. You are not a f***ing Clint Eastwood from the wild west. The only way you might have an advantage, is if you have proper periodic training… that thanks to supports from people like you will never become mandatory in US.
My conundrum is this – why do you mandate training and an exam to get a driver’s license, but not a gun? Why do you mandate insurance for drivers, but not gun owners?
Edited 2014-10-16 11:33 UTC
“Knives are a vey inefficient way to kill.”
The knife attacks in China seem to go well for those perpetrating them. A quick google search indicates about 4 people dead per attack.
“By the way, having a knife on you in many parts of Europe is grounds for arrest and prison.”
And per capita crime is higher in several European countries than the US. Several place which have stricter controls in general about weapons also have seemingly higher rates of violent crime (though statistic gathering methods make it difficult to compare but it’s clearly not so different that it’s clear cut.)
“Do you need a gun for anything else than killing?”
I know several people who use them for killing… animals for food. And every other gun owner I know uses it for target practice / entertainment and home defense. The latter being the more ideological than generally practical but there are instances of it happening. This same argument however can be made of the police and anyone else… who most of those who oppose private ownership of firearms support. Though recent tragedies in the US has started to change that a bit.
Violent crime is not a universal definition shared between all countries. Being mugged under the threat of being punched is considered a violent crime in many places, while not in others.
I’d live to see a single hunter that uses a handgun to kill animals for food. Hunting is one thing, but handguns and hunting?!?!?!
Sorry but you’re quite wrong. In 2011 knives were used to murder 1,694 people in the US, over 5x more than those killed by “assault weapons” (scary black semi automatic rifles). Nearly 400 were killed by knives in the UK that same year. Countless others were injured. Knives are a very efficient way to kill people and knives are definitely no joke.
Also: killing is always an unfortunate thing, but not always a bad thing. If a woman is being raped, should she allow the rape to continue? Should she not have the right to pull out a gun and shoot her attacker?
Of course, guns are also used for hunting and sport, but I would say that knives should be banned before guns (it sounds like they pretty much are where you are, yet somehow the criminals seem not to care about the laws and do it anyway because hundreds are murdered per year), because the protection and defense of innocent human life is far more important than having a tool that makes it easy to, say, slice a tomato for a sandwich.
Edited 2014-10-15 22:06 UTC
don’t know much about assault weapons, but in the us of a there are about 12000 people murdered with a firearm every year
1700 vs 12000
Actually in 2011 it was 8,583. 4,081 were murdered using other methods (including knives, fists, etc.) And if suddenly guns were to disappear from the earth the number of people killed by “other methods” would rise.
There’s no denying that firearms are the most common weapon used in homicides; what I was arguing was that it’s false that knives are an “inefficient way to kill”. Also as a counterpoint to his “20 people stabbed, no deaths”, I would point to the North Hollywood Shootout, in which over 2K bullets were exchanged between the two robbers and police; 18 people were injured, and the only two people who died were the robbers. And there are plenty of other mass stabbing incidents in which there were mass deaths.
They are efficient when used in surprise attacks, and by someone who knows where to stab to kill. But if you see someone coming with a knife, you can run away, and if that person is just stabbing randomly, you may survive. If all Anders Breivik had had was a knife, I doubt 70 people would be dead. The same for all US mass shootings.
Yes and if you’re shot randomly you may survive as well.
Tell the 1,694 people who died last year that they can “just run away” and “may survive”. I’m not sure what we’re arguing about here. I think we both agree that guns make it easier to kill, again I’m not denying this and never have. But to say that it’s not easy to kill someone with a knife is a cop out. The facts prove otherwise; you don’t have to be skilled; it’s easy to surprise someone; people often freeze when in fear; you don’t have to stab in certain areas any more than you have to shoot in certain areas; a stab wound anywhere can potentially kill, just like a gunshot wound anywhere can kill. Knives are no joke. The many, many people who die in the US and Europe each year from stabbings prove this to be the case.
If Anders Breivik had tried doing what he did in a country that didn’t deny people the right to defend themselves, then it’s also entirely possible that 70 people wouldn’t be dead either. Note that most mass shootings here in the USA have occurred in “gun free zones”. And the victims are… you guessed it, unarmed.
> Nearly 400 were killed by knives in the UK that same year.
Actually, we don’t keep statistics of the numbers of people killed by knives in the UK. We keep a statistic of people unlawfully killed by sharp or pointed objects – so that figure will include (for example) people attacked and killed with a broken bottle or by pushed plate glass or stabbed with a screwdriver or shiv.
Likewise we have no laws that ban possession of knives in public places – we have a law that bans possession of bladed or sharply pointed objects in public places without a good reason (or certain exemptions, like small non-locking pocket knives). Whilst this might be a sharp knife, it might equally be a blunt plastic butter knife or (technically) a small sewing needle, or even a drawing pin (I think you call them thumbtacks in the US). At least one person has been convicted of this offence for possession of a blunt butter knife blade.
We also have an ‘offensive weapon’ law, but this is rarely used as the item needs to be either:
* Specifically designed to be a weapon. Note, many guns are no more a weapon by definition than a knife (e.g. a rifle designed to kill animals is not a weapon, as a weapon is something designed to injure of kill humans).
* Something modified to be a weapon (e.g. sharpened screw driver).
* *ANYTHING* used as weapon. Intentionally hit someone with a rolled up newspaper? It is now not just assault, but also possession of an offensive weapon.
* *ANYTHING* you intend to use as a weapon. Intent is something that is difficult to prove, especially without a specific threat (I think if you actually threaten, then it would be in the former category as to threaten is to use). One example that could constitute threatening is shaking your walking stick at someone who has offended you.
It is a slippery slope. First we had laws to punish those who actually attacked someone with a weapon (makes perfect sense). But, then we decided we wanted to prevent the attacks, so thought we ought to punish those who possessed weapons (without a reasonable excuse, or lawful authority). However that became difficult because many things used as weapons aren’t actually weapons until they are used as such, punished those whom we could prove had malicious intent. However intent is a difficult thing to prove, so we changed our law to punish those you merely possessed a certain subset of items (regardless of whether they are actually effective weapons). Now we are talking about mandatory sentences, so that you will go to prison if you are found with blunt plastic butter knife.
However, we don’t seem to be doing anything about what it is that makes one person think that it is acceptable to harm or even kill another – often without any provocation.
I should also mention the numbers unlawfully killed by blunt force is about equal to those killed with sharp objects (last time I checked). Additionally about half those killed with sharp objects were killed in the home (where only the most idiotic would try to ban knives).
BTW our firearms laws now cover three general types of firearms:
* Actual firearms.
* Realistic imitation firearms (this would cover most of the toy guns I owned as a child, though not modern ones as the designs have been adapted).
* Imitation/implied firearms (e.g. pretending to have a gun in you pocket and then committing a robbery would be classed as armed robbery).
While I agree with most of your post, this part made me laugh. I agree that gun laws could be more strict, but do you REALLY think that fewer guns would make the nation more peaceful? Not in the slightest. As the UK amply demonstrates, if you don’t have guns, you use knives. The issue isn’t the weapon, it’s the people. Until PEOPLE become more peaceful, no amount of weapon restrictions will make the nation more peaceful.
That said, I think I’d rather be stabbed or cut than shot.
I don’t see gun control becoming a major issue with the government for one good reason – it’s far easier to detect guns than knives. Knives can literally be made from ANYTHING. As long as it can penetrate skin, it can be used to make a knife. Even so called “plastic” or ceramic guns have a LOT of metal in them. It’s Hollywood that you can have a gun that isn’t picked up by a simple metal detector, and the government knows it. So they’d rather bad guys had guns than knives.
it is soooooo off topic, but cmon, someone with a knife is much easier to disable than someone with a gun. If someone has a knife you can run away, try that agains a gun. It takes only a few seconds to kill several people with a gun, while with a knife it takes time. Even if you have a gun, I hope you don’t wear it around with the safety off, by the time you cock up your gun, you are basically dead again. It is also easier to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, than thrusting it into someone…
A few things:
– Most guns these days do not need to be manually cocked like they so often do in the movies.
– Carrying a non-single action (e.g., a gun that must have the hammer cocked before you can pull the trigger and fire it) firearm with the safety off is actually standard operating procedure. If the gun is holstered (and therefore the trigger is covered by the holster) it’s perfectly safe and preferred; it’s almost undoubtedly what your local police do, and what the police in most of the country do. Safetys are for guns that must be “cocked and locked” or for guns that are outside of holsters.
– Countless people use guns to defend themselves on a daily basis, there are tons and tons of stories that show this to be the case and there are websites that archive links to these news stories, as well as several surveys which have been done, so the whole “you won’t have time / it’ll just get taken from you / etc” argument is a bad one. In some situations? Maybe. But certainly not all. And if that were the case why do cops carry guns? They’ll just die first every time, right?
well, for example in the UK most cops do not have firearm afaik. And yes, I say, that in most cases if the firearm is not hold in hand, I suppose that you need more time to react to someone who already prepared his/her gun.
I consider the US pretty safe in comparison to the available of firearms. But situations like the shooting of Michael Brown would be easily avoidable if police officers did not have an itchy finger because they work in a less safe environment than there European colleges.
It does not mean per se that all of these cases would disappear, but these would be certainly less frequent.
Actually, stats show cops are three times safer than the average person. Why? That’s easy – one) they’re armed and everyone knows it; two) they can kill you and face little to no repercussions for it; and three) if you kill a cop, you might as well just kill yourself since every LEO in the state will be gunning for your ass (no pun intended). When you hear of a cop being killed, it’s usually a crash in a chase, or more rarely some random psycho during a traffic stop. In fact, one source of cop killings that is on the rise is strictly their own fault – cops killed by residents during a no-knock warrant service. Kicking in doors with no warning has never been more popular, and cops and innocent residents are the victims.
Where are you getting your stats?
http://criminologycareers.about.com/od/Career_Trends/a/Dangers-In-C…
You’ve been watching way too many Westerns.
Hundreds of highly trained police officers are shot (and killed) every year throughout the world because they either don’t have time to draw their weapon or are outgunned.
Someone armed with a knife can easily stab you fatally before you can unholster your weapon.
Real life is nothing like the movies. Unless your pistol is already in your hand and you’re behind protective cover you are in huge trouble. If the assailant has a shotgun or rifle you will lose every time.
Pistols are woefully inaccurate (~15 metre range under ideal conditions) and have very little stopping power. It can take as many as 5-10 rounds at close range to stop an assailant.
Sorry but you’re wrong; I’ve not been watching too many Westerns; I’ve been reading too many local news stories and scientific surveys and facts, and you’ve been reading too many liberal anti-gun news websites that fail to give the facts (because the only thing the anti-gun agenda has going for it is emotion).
If you need to draw your gun, you’re already in huge trouble. I’d rather be in huge trouble and be able to use a gun if need be, then be in huge trouble and be at the mercy of the criminal. At least I would have a fighting chance. Is there a 100% success rate? Of course not. But there sure isn’t one without a gun either. That’s the great thing about America; if you don’t want to carry a gun, fine, you don’t have to. If you do, then great, that’s your right.
Anyway, here are some news stories just from the past month or so that prove that every single day armed citizens are indeed able to successfully use their gun to defend themselves against both armed and unarmed criminals, often without even having to fire a shot:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Man-shot-in-apparent-sel…
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/12/gunman-shot-by-store-clerk-in-attempt…
http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index.ssf/2014/09/76-year-old_man…
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/accused-armed-robber-shot-…
http://www.turlockjournal.com/archives/27531/
http://www.click2houston.com/news/meat-store-manager-shoots-attempt…
http://www.newsnet5.com/homepage-showcase/police-multiple-people-sh…
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/pa_rep_shooting_…
http://www.koco.com/news/police-shawnee-homeowner-shoots-armed-burg…
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/10/east-side_flint_m…
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/09/18/sapd–man-shot…
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/26528353/suspected-burglar-shot-by-r…
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/video_springfield_cl…
http://fox59.com/2014/09/08/person-shot-killed-in-attempted-robbery…
http://www.kpho.com/story/26516768/pd-suspect-shot-killed-while-try…
Once again, these are all just within the past 1-1.5 months, and not even an extensive list, I got tired of looking. I’m sure you get the point though.
Too many Westerns. Yeah, that’s it.
Edited 2014-10-16 18:04 UTC
And countless others die without ever getting to their gun and what’s even worse innocent people get shot because somebody assumes they have a gun.
The police are trained to use the guns, you are nowhere near the training that a police officer gets.
And countless others are saved because criminals decide crime doesn’t pay quite as much anymore. It’s just no longer worth the risk of them getting shot. Maybe that’s a big reason why the US’s murder rate is at an all-time low and other violent crime rates are consistently dropping every year? We have more gun rights and less gun control than ever; gun sales are breaking records; concealed carry is now “shall issue” in almost every single state in the US (it wasn’t this way even 10 years ago); etc.
Anyway, countless others die, or are seriously maimed, or raped, without ever having a gun and having a chance to defend themselves. At least with a gun they have a chance. Again, look at the news stories I posted from just the past month or so in my other replies to you.
As I said before, using a gun to defend yourself is not rocket science. You draw, and, if need be, shoot. Regular people who use guns aren’t sniping out bad guys 100 yards away or busting down the doors of drug dealers, they’re using their guns to defend their homes and themselves when their attacker is just a few feet away. Countless of these “nowhere near as trained” citizens use their guns successfully on a daily basis. I already posted a few of these news stories in two posts now.
Also aside from SWAT team members and such, police officers do NOT get nearly as much training as the anti-gunners would have you believe.
You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. It takes many hours of training to get even the most basic skills in small arms. If you think it is simply a matter of drawing your weapon and shooting you are utterly deluded. A far more likely outcome is that you will get shot as you reach for your weapon or will shoot an innocent person (including yourself). Even if you do shoot the perpertrator they probably won’t be stopped.
Police forces use weapons as a last resort. If they have a choice they will always use a large team of heavily armed SWAT officers to respond to any firearms incident.
Double post; link to reply:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?598302
Edited 2014-10-17 16:57 UTC
@unclefester,
The irony here is that the fact that you think it takes “many hours of training” to get even “the most basic skills” in “small arms”, proves that you know absolutely nothing about guns and have most probably never shot a handgun, or any gun, in your life except maybe when you were 10. Handguns and most guns period are incredibly simple to use. I have taken several people to the range who have never shot a gun before in their life, including women, and after teaching them the three rules of gun safety and then spending a minute or two teaching them the controls (of which there are very, very few) they are quickly hitting paper targets and shooting like they’ve shot for their entire lives. If you think guns are difficult and require lots of training to use effectively, then you must also have a pretty difficult time using your computer mouse.
Despite what the anti-gunners would love for you to believe (because if you can convince people that guns are hard to use and require lots of training that “only police can properly get”, you can make it harder for everyone to own guns) guns are in fact very easy to use. It absolutely does not require “many hours of training” in order for a person to successfully draw their weapon and shoot their attacker who is just a couple of feet away (and statistics show that most defensive gun uses occur within 3-5 feet). Will training help? Absolutely. But is it absolutely necessary? Absolutely not, and if you think this, you are the one who is utterly deluded.
These are regular people who own and carry guns as a last resort of self defense, not police officers or SWAT team members who are going to a crime scene and trying to shoot a gunman who’s 50 yards away, or who are trying to rescue hostages, or who are attempting to run into a building to stop a shooting in progress. That, I will give you, requires lots of training.
Once again you are very wrong and ironically you are the one who is clearly showing that you know nothing about guns nor self defense aside from the baloney that the anti-gun websites and newspapers you read and anti-gun TV shows you watch spew out at you.
To quote from the CDC study/report commissioned by Obama about a year ago:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
How about some real world examples, just from the last month or so?
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Man-shot-in-apparent-sel…
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/12/gunman-shot-by-store-clerk-in-attempt…
http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index.ssf/2014/09/76-year-old_man…
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/accused-armed-robber-shot-…
http://www.turlockjournal.com/archives/27531/
http://www.click2houston.com/news/meat-store-manager-shoots-attempt…
http://www.newsnet5.com/homepage-showcase/police-multiple-people-sh…
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/pa_rep_shooting_…
http://www.koco.com/news/police-shawnee-homeowner-shoots-armed-burg…
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/10/east-side_flint_m…
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/09/18/sapd–man-shot…
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/26528353/suspected-burglar-shot-by-r…
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/video_springfield_cl…
http://fox59.com/2014/09/08/person-shot-killed-in-attempted-robbery…
http://www.kpho.com/story/26516768/pd-suspect-shot-killed-while-try…
Anyway, you were saying?
(These are just a few stories from the past one and a half months by the way. And only the ones reported by the local news. And only the ones reported to the police. And only the ones I found before I got tired of looking after a few minutes.)
Is it possible you’ll get shot while going for your weapon? Sure. Is it possible you’ll shoot an innocent bystander? Sure. But these instances are very rare. Far more police have shot bystanders than citizens ever have and probably ever will. Should we ban police?
And is it possible the attacker won’t stop? Sure (although very unlikely), but if you believe that so much, then why should police carry guns if they’re supposedly not effective? And why is it that if guns are so ineffective that it’s bad if you get shot or an innocent bystander becomes shot, but suddenly if you shoot the bad guy, “he probably won’t stop anyway!”
One thing is for sure: he’s far more likely to stop if you have a gun than if you don’t. A rapist, a home invader, a murderer, a robber, an assaulter, is highly unlikely to stop what he’s doing if you ask politely, I hope you would agree. And that’s why more and more people are carrying guns: so they have a chance to fight back against the criminals.
Edited 2014-10-17 16:57 UTC
@unclefester,
I think this 70+ year old man who never shot a gun before and recently used it to fend off an armed man who broke into his home would probably disagree:
http://kfor.com/2014/10/15/they-thought-we-were-easy-prey-oklahoma-…
By the way guys, I guess downvoting to hide the truth is a lot easier than having to face it and put some effort into crafting a counterargument. 😉
Edited 2014-10-17 17:48 UTC
You’re making some assumptions about the level of training private citizens have and the level of training required to be deployed as a police officer with a firearm. The fact is many citizens are well trained, and many police are under-trained. I tried to find a link and will try again later, but couldn’t locate the story. In something like 20 states, police can serve without any training at all, with a firearm, for anywhere from 6 weeks to 10 months. This is mostly a problem in poorer states and municipalities.
This is hardly as good as the article I had in mind, but if you give it a read it is supportive of my general note on the lack of rigorous gun training standards in place for police.
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/3201381-…
People who are not knowledgable about firearms frequently get things very wrong. Chances are most folks grossly overestimate the level of firearms expertise a typical police officer has.
On the other hand, go to a range, and you will see dozens of enthusiast citizens who can consistently outshoot the local police. It’s really something.
I keep wondering if other countries will be more like the US with guns “readily available” as prices of manufacturing keep dropping:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/5/6910385/this-1200-machine-lets-yo…
and here we are, isn’t it the same thing that you are doing than those gg’rs? seeding hatred? Isn’t it the internet where does threats were made? Was it even verified that the email came from the US? Or that twitter remark?
Why can’t we just get along?
First of all, to clear that up: death threats and such are way out of line and should be severely punished.
Although a previously hardcore and now occasional fps gamer myself, at first I didn’t even know what this whole gamergate affair was about. It turns out that it started as criticism of the uncomfortable proximity between gaming developers and the media/reviewers who are supposed to review them. You may have seen the usual “9/10 It’s ok. — IGN” jokes. Now this whole thing exploded after it turned out that a developer (female) was having an affair with a reviewer (male) which does raise valid concerns about the credibility of both. It’s not a far stretch to see that angry people accuse her of the oldest profession in the world.
However, I have the impression that this whole gamergate affair has then been hijacked by some powerful special interest groups to force their views on the “gamer community” and accuse them of being anti-female. I put that between quotes because the definition of “gamer” is the entry point into this discussion.
These interest groups use the very wide definition of gamer (anyone who plays any video game, including the occasional candy crush on completely different platforms), which of course contains a lot of women. They use this definition to criticize, change and even abolish a branch of games that are mainly focused on a generally male audience by calling them outdated as “half of the gamers are now women”.
Obviously these players feel threatened as someone from the outside who doesn’t even understand these kind of games accuses them of being misogynists and then wants to change and abolish their genre, their identity. It’s been tried before, accusing gamers of being violent psychos who could go on a mass killing spree any moment, using made-up or flawed studies (the typical “correlation does not imply causation”).
So they fight back. But of course, this is pretty much like a “think of the children” argument, anything you say or do, it just “proves” you’re even more anti-female, why else would you not agree?
And yes, there are millions of gamers, it’s no surprise that there are a few sociopaths amongst them who think it’s funny or appropriate to send actual threats. It harms the real debate and credibility of any valid concerns and it just further fuels the narrative that “gamers” hate women.
For the record, I agree that the gaming community does have several severe issues, though I don’t think it’s related to women and in my experience it’s far less common than people make it seem to be. While women may get a rape threat, that’s the same asshole that threatened to kill me and f–k my mom. Hardly credible. The issue here is the anti-social asshole, not some anti-female behaviour, and we’ve coped with those for years by simply ignoring the trolls or a simple kickban. It’s like a friend of mine said: “I know it can’t stop them but it’s still faster than typing a new cdkey.” A good admin is all it takes to clean up a local community
An interesting video I found from an actual feminist explains it pretty well in my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w
Edited 2014-10-15 11:06 UTC
Lies. This has been debunked so often that you can’t really trot it out anymore. See the first link in this very article, for god’s sake.
Except, this is another lie. Watch the Sarkeesian videos. Nowhere does she advocate that such games no longer be made. Nowhere. Never. You’re believing in lies spread by GamerGate nutters without actually checking the source material.
If your “identity” is defined by games glorifying excessive rape, abuse, and violence towards women, you are sick. Plain and simple.
Edited 2014-10-15 11:03 UTC
Not in so many words, no. But she scaremongers to whip up moral panic about games, using the same faulty arguments linking them to real world violence as conservative crusaders like Jack Thompson. There’s reason to be concerned that this could lead to increased censorship.
What games are these exactly?
Despite Sarkeesian’s biased and misleading presentations, sandbox games that allows you to attack both men and women (with almost all real enemies actually men), aren’t automatically “glorifying violence against women”.
If you’re going to condemn the abusive behaviour of gamergate people, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick use smear tactics, like accusing people of being “sick”.
Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. All the videos do is highlight consistent, systematic and obvious sexist and misogynistic aspects of videogames. In fact – all the examples she highlights are things I, myself, already noted to myself long before this whole GamerGate terrorist campaign started.
Considering all the outrage, I expected her videos to be condescending and dishonest, filled with lies and deceit, hoping there’d at least be SOME morsel of justification behind the GamerGate terror campaign.
However, that morsel isn’t there. The videos are entirely reasonable, fair, and even specifically praise those games and companies that try to do their best to change the status quo (e.g. Mass Effect, BioWare, and loads of indie titles).
This, of course, is the real problem. The GamerGate people are experiencing a severe case of cognitive dissonance, and instead of changing their views accordingly to solve their state of dissonance, they instead ally themselves with nutjobs like Adam Baldwin (read his Twitter. He’s one of those people that give the 90% of normal, awesome Americans a bad name all over the world) so they don’t have to.
Not one of her examples is fake, made up, or untrue. In other words, your above statement is complete bullshit.
If your identity is defined by violent and sexual abuse of women, then yes, you are sick. Why are even debating that?
That’s the whole point. The identity isn’t about that and there’s not a single violent game that hurts women but not men.
But like I said, this is just another “think of the children”, no matter what one says, “why are we even debating that?”
It’s such an easy excuse to discard any argument the other side while pretending to have the moral superiority, even if you’ve got a totally wrong impression.
Yep – you are definitely one of those ignorant people. It’s not about hurting both sexes. It’s not about killing. It’s the way that is presented. PERIOD!
It’s not a “think of the children”, this time it’s actually “Think broader”. One single example is not all of Tropes vs Women.
Let alone, isn’t GamerGate about ethics in journalism? Why so much attention to Anita? She’s not even a tech journalist!!!
My point exactly, it’s fantasy, fiction, just like killing is fiction, why should this particular matter be represented like in reality?
Read my first post, it started as such, it escalated and outsiders jumped on it. And yes, stupid folks on both sides blew this way out of proportion.
I now I really need to get back to work, it’s been fine debating in here, seeing different points of views, though I do not agree with them. But then, if everyone is thinking the same thing, then someone probably isn’t thinking
Edited 2014-10-15 12:30 UTC
If you had watched the videos, you’d know exactly why.
Here’s a link to point you in the right direction http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/81Jrp15.pdf
Did you watch them all? I’ve watched fragments and skimmed through them, I really don’t have the time nor interest to watch 7 half an hour of commentary videos, I’d rather go play some game
Thanks for that paper, that’s a lot more interesting. I’ll read that in more detail this evening. I’m particularly interested in how they measured this “acceptance” and how this reflects reality. After a quick read (got used to that during my studies), the paper has the following results: the RMA (rape myth acceptance) was insignificant, the AIV (i.e. violence acceptance against anyone – how did they turn that in “against women?”) was higher – and only for males. And they ignored the their ASB scale altogether, I wonder why. So again, at a first glance, this is not anti-women specific.
Edited 2014-10-15 13:34 UTC
So you admit to not having a clue what the argument is about, yet you criticise those that support it nonetheless?
Do you see people like you are the problem?
I’m not the one who keeps mentioning this Sarkeesian person. Why is everyone so focused on her?
I explicitly said that she does the right thing by funding her own game. I also said that I’m tired of all these other people – you’re being one of them – who instantly hop on the bandwagon to declare gamers sexist and sick just because of their entertainment preferences. Perhaps you should take an example from Sarkeesian and go create your own 100% correct game. Do not watch porn or any fantasy novel on the way.
Fun fact: I hardly even play those games, I prefer simple shooting like Killing floor and construction games. However, I will defend people’s right to enjoy whatever they want in their personal time without being unfairly called a sexist or a murderer in spe.
I’m sick of people who pretend to have the moral high ground on freedom and privacy but do not hesitate to shame, insult and meddle with others for their personal preferences in their own personal time. I had expected more of you, especially coming from a self proclaimed modern and tolerant country as yours.
And yes, I’m also sick of those who make threats like the morons from the news article, and I greatly condemn that. But those two facts are not mutually exclusive.
Edited 2014-10-15 14:36 UTC
I thought her videos were about tropes mainly not about misogyny. Do you consider damsel in distress as misogyny, for example?
Her cherry picking and misrepresentation of many of those games couldn’t be much more blatant. For example, here’s how she describes the “violence against women” in Hitman Absolution:
“Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”
She’s talking about a sandbox game where virtually anyone can be attacked, one that allows all bodies to be dragged around for stealth gameplay reasons. In common with most other violent games, nearly every enemy you’re intended to kill is male.
The only significant difference in treatment between male and female NPCs is that you can’t remove clothing from women, while male characters can be stripped to their underwear. This gives the player an incentive to attack men (using their clothing as a disguise) that doesn’t apply to women in the game.
Her claim that attacking “virtual female characters” is what you’re meant to do, and that violence against women is “always implicitly encouraged”, is contradicted by the fact that the game actually penalises you for it. In fact, it’s something you can see in the video where she shows women in the game being assaulted.
If you watch that scene in the various walkthroughs on Youtube, you’ll find that nobody attacks those female characters like Sarkeesian does in her video. They’re actually there for you to avoid and sneak past, not to be acted upon at all. Their presence and dialogue in the scene is used to highlight the fact that your actual target is an abusive bad guy worthy of the Hitman treatment.
The content of the game itself, and the choices of the gamers who can be seen playing it, reveal that Sarkeesian’s claims are untrue.
Of course she doesn’t simply make a false claim about the game encouraging violence against female characters, she mixes in her warped pseudo-psychological assumptions about the player’s “perverse pleasure” and “sexual arousal” to really push the scaremongering.
This is someone I’m meant to take seriously as a fair and balanced media critic?
You’re accusing people of having an “identity defined by violent and sexual abuse of women” because they enjoy games (I assume you’re talking about Sarkeesian’s targets, e.g. Hitman and Grand Theft Auto) with content you find offensive. You don’t think that’s going just a little bit too far?
You remind me a lot of debates with the anti-porn feminists and other social conservatives fighting for mandatory internet filtering in the UK. They often use similar tactics, such as smearing anyone who disagrees as sick and perverted, or using the abuse they receive to label all ideological opponents as violent and misogynistic.
The fact that some of the content they oppose is genuinely nasty, or that some morons and crazies do sent them threats, doesn’t mean that their scaremongering narrative is based on fact, or that the moral panic they whip up has no negative consequences.
A) That was not directed exclusively at Hitman, but feel free to take that out of context. In fact, helpless women are a major element in Hitman series. And here is the context: “So in many of the titles we’ve been discussing, the game makers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable, eroticized female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through.”
B) Kettle meet pot – You are cherry picking a quote taken out of context and putting your own interpretation on what she said. And then going on to extrapolate that she is wrong on all her counts. That sounds like you’ve built or have fallen for the strawman.
C) How on this earth can you put violence against women in quotes? Are you implying that it’s not worth the word violence or are you telling that there is no violence?
As usual… the best way to distract from the topic is to scream – but men get killed too!!! It’s not the killing that the complaint is about.
All in all – you are focusing on one thing just to dismiss her whole narrative.
How am I taking her out of context when the words I quoted are the ones she narrates over the top of her Hitman footage?
Of course she applies the same scaremongering to other games, but the footage from Hitman Absolution is the specific example that Sarkeesian chose to use to illustrate her argument. If she had other, more valid examples to make her case then she should have used them instead.
Unlike most of the clips she uses, which are generally cribbed from other people’s videos, she actually appears to have recorded that Hitman footage herself. The fact that her carefully contrived evidence completely falls apart under scrutiny is damning for her whole argument.
How exactly am I misinterpreting the following quote:
“Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.”
Her accusations of “perverse pleasure” and “sexual arousal connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality” seem pretty clear and straightforward to me. Are you really going to defend such a blatant attempt to smear games and gamers, despite her own evidence not backing up those claims?
It’s in quotes because I was responding to Thom and quoting his claim that games glorify violence against women.
Even if that wasn’t the case, I might still use quotes if it wasn’t otherwise clear that I was talking about violence towards characters in a game. After all, the characters in games are pixels, not people. No actual violence takes place when you run someone over in GTA, or carry out an assassination in Hitman, and there’s little solid evidence that virtual aggression leads to real world violence.
It’s ironic that you accuse other people of nitpicking and creating straw man arguments, then focus on a tiny grammatical detail to insinuate that I don’t care about violence against women.
So stating a fact constitutes “screaming” (even though you’re the only one throwing in multiple exclamation marks)…
I suppose calling gamers sick, accusing them of being sexually aroused by violence against women, and smearing people as misogynists for disagreeing, are all calm and reasonable debate tactics?
Holy f***k! Another one. Did you watch thunderfoot or get info from one of his followers?
Short answer is no – plain wrong.
She is nothing like Jack Thompson. She has no plans on banning anything, but asks to look at the way that violence against women is presented and balanced. I never thought of it in that light. But her videos made me think – like any piece of art.
And she is right – representations of women are not balanced in video games.
Not to say that all her videos are perfect representations, but the overall message is valid. Anyone that is attacking her for “But you can kill men as well” is missing the point and is focusing only on one single video. It’s like saying that any Ferrari is crap because the hand crafted interior has imperfections.
Alternatively people that attack her on those imperfections are doing it because they just plain hate her for being a feminist.
Nowhere did he say that she wanted to ban them? Just that she uses the same flawed arguments like Jack Thompson and hence causes scaremongering.
You are missing the point. I agree that games misrepresent reality, but that’s the whole point. It’s not real. Why should they represent reality? Do books have to represent reality?
It’s entertainment, if it’s not entertaining for you, then don’t play nor read it, but don’t go complain it doesn’t represent reality when it’s not meant to. I don’t see the issue here.
She does one thing right: funding her own game. If it’s successful, well good to her! Just stop accusing the rest of us of being sexist/murderers please. I don’t judge you based on your entertainment values (do you watch porn? do you like reading fiction?), and I don’t judge nor treat women any different than men so I really don’t see the problem?
Edited 2014-10-15 12:21 UTC
Last I checked making a stand on things that you feel are wrong or inappropriate is needed to be done, rather than just turning a blind eye.
I read it, and from that very article: “Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since.” Given the lack of credibility of the reviewing industry, it sure was sketchy. Did I say that this particular instance was valid? No, I said it exploded from there and it does raise valid concern.
Did I mention her? No. Good for her that she’s creating her own game, that’s the way to do it. But just go check about any feminist article in most common news papers. Before it was “gamers turn into killers”, now it’s the “gamers turn into rapists” mantra.
Well thanks for the ad hominem. You’re part of the problem. You just don’t want to understand. Name me one serious game where rape, abuse and violence towards women is OK but at the same time not a single man dies or gets hurt. Heck, in most games it’s only the men that get violated and killed.
I’m tired of these pathetic double standards. They’re violent games. There is going to be violence, but when it’s against women, then it’s suddenly bad, sexist and sick? Plain and simple?
Edited 2014-10-15 11:31 UTC
It was a general “you”.
Woosh. It’s clear you have not read or watched any serious material about this whatsoever.
I identify as a gamer. That does not mean I condone nor support rape nor violence.
Well, go on, name me one that is focused on raping women while at the same time is not violent towards men. I don’t want to “read it”, I want to see it. Should be easy enough judging from your reaction.
Edited 2014-10-15 11:38 UTC
I’m not going to paraphrase for you. You can watch a great video series about this very subject here – she answers your question in much greater detail than I ever could. If you truly want an answer to this question – as you claim you do – you’ll surely set a little time aside for the answer, right?
http://www.feministfrequency.com/
Don’t forget to have fun – there’s a shitload of old and classic games in there that were fun to see highlighted!
Ah yes, I saw that. Look at the list of games. Every single one of them is about killing people (mostly men). But that’s ok, they’re just men, and killing is not as bad as sexism, right? I’ll give you a hint: both are bad, and neither turn a gamer into a murderer not rapist.
So no, you didn’t answer my question.
Anyway, lunch break is over. I’ve said what I wanted to say, if that makes me a sick rapist and a sexist in your eyes, then so be it.
Edited 2014-10-15 11:50 UTC
So, you’re not going to watch the videos which answer your question, meaning you don’t really want an answer.
That is cognitive dissonance at work. You don’t WANT the answer.
I do want an answer, but she has not given it to me. All I see is complaining about the role of games. They’re stories, fantasies, in which you play an imaginary role. You may as well complain about fantasy books that do not accurately represent reality. Heh, how about porn? It doesn’t make the reader/gamer sexist, just as it doesn’t make the reader/gamer violent.
We’ve been through that discussion before, just a different narrative.
Also, the downvote brigade is pretty interesting. One may not agree with my arguments, but nowhere am I accusing or insulting anyone, unlike some other people in this discussion, who funnily get upvoted.
Edited 2014-10-15 12:10 UTC
I’d downvote you only for the fact that you refuse to talk about anything than one single video out of 7.
That’s because your mind is made up, and don’t want to hear the real message. But I’ll condense it for you: she is complaining not against violence against women, but the *type* of violence and the way that the women are portrayed *differently* from the men. She isn’t crusading against violence, but against misogyny. But I guess that distinction is lost on you.
Read my other comments first rather than picking on bits. I guess that’s the problem with arguing with many people over different points.
I understand the difference, I just don’t see how it is relevant. The same crusade was made against the violence, and it all turned out wrong. Why would this not be any different? If people could only stop blaming everyone and simply stick to their own business. Don’t like it? Go make your own game (which she is doing), but don’t antagonize a group about what they do in their free time if it doesn’t physically hurt anyone.
How about we turn the roles a bit: religion X finds women with bare legs insulting, shall we let them go ahead and slutshame those women until they fully cover themselves?
No, we don’t.
Religion Y finds misogyny in games offensive, shall we let them go ahead and shame those gamers until they stop?
Yes, they’re sick, why are we even having this debate?
Showing the root of the problem. I can barely conceive that someone is so ignorant as to not understand how treating 50% of the population like shit in a game is not a good idea, ever.
Because the crusade against violence is about the idea that video game violence increases violence in society. Whether that is true we still don’t know. This is different, because 1) *it has been shown that violence against women only in video games results in a negative view of women* (see http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/81Jrp15.pdf), and 2) even if it wouldn’t, there’s still the issue that depicting a specific group of people in a stereotypical, denigrating fashion is just plain wrong.
Truth is, you don’t get say what other people’s “business” is, just because you feel it’s yours.
The same ol’ tired argument regurgitated. Said by sexists, racists, over and over again. And it’s also not true, as making rape and death threats *does* have physical impact.
Let me translate that for you:
“Religion X wants to oppress women for no good reason, do we allow that? – No
Religion Y wants to end portrayal of women as garbage, do we allow that? – Yes”
It’s not about religion, it’s about human decency.
Right. I checked that paper before and I don’t even know why you refer to it because its results say nothing is proven. If anything, it proves you wrong. See my other post on that.
How about 30% of the population? 20%? 10%? 1%? How about the full 100%? Furthermore, they don’t treat people like shit, they treat characters like shit. If you can’t tell the difference between pixels and people, I guess you’re the one with the problem.
And who is making these rape and death threats? Those criminals from the article? How many people do you think do that compared to how many are playing those games (if those trolls are even playing in the first place)? And do you think those sociopaths do not exist outside of the gaming world? I find your post extremely generalizing, accusatory and insulting.
Well fine then, let’s just ban porn. And while we’re at it, books that hint at sexism (50 shades?), violence, and pretty much put any religion, belief or lifestyle in a bad daylight. It’s all “indecent” to someone.
So much for freedom.
Edited 2014-10-15 16:32 UTC
Right on page one: “The result indicated that exposure to the films portraying violent sexuality increased male subjects’ acceptance of interpersonal violence against women”. It is repeated in the rest of the study. Also note that this isn’t the first study to measure this, but a follow-up study to deal with criticism of previous studies.
Also, you are conveniently ignoring the part where I wrote “even if it [the results of the study] wouldn’t [be true], there’s still the issue that depicting a specific group of people in a stereotypical, denigrating fashion is just plain wrong.”
That’s a red herring. Women *are* 50% of the population.
Movies show actors. People can tell the difference. Yet it has been shown on numerous occasions that watching movies can influence peoples behaviour. You don’t even need to be in control of the characters (like in a game) for that effect! And yes, it’s characters that are treated like shit, but it’s predominantly *female* characters. That’s the whole point, innit?
That’s inconsequential. The problem is not only the rape and death threats per se, but the fact that so many gamers say things like they “had it coming”, or “I wouldn’t do it myself, but I can understand why they do it” etc. And sure, that’ll be a minority of gamers, but it is a very vocal and visible section of gamers.
Again, a red herring, or a strawman. We’re talking specifically about gaming.
Of course you would. But it doesn’t make it less true.
I’m not sure if you’re just trolling here or making a slipery slope argument. Porn is a border case, but we’re not talking about porn (worth an interesting discussion, but not here and now).
What is the problem with what you say, and it has been said by others, and it will probably be repeated by yet others ad nauseam, is that denigrating, raping, killing, and otherwise treating women badly in video games is not a matter of it being “indecent”. It’s on a whole different level than “indecent”. It is fundamentely *wrong* to treat a specific group of fellow human beings that way, either in real life or in a movie, or in a game, *especially* when we know it has real-life consequences and/or stems from an already bad situation in real life. Sure, we can quarrel about the semantics of “wrong”, so I’ll rephrase: in the long run, systematically treating a group if humans like shit, has always had negative consequences that far outweighed the benefit of doing so. So even if you don’t want to use slipery-slope moral arguments, this one is a no-brainer.
I am sorry, but I think the relevancy of that study is similar to studies which prove that violence in movies/games affects people.
In some degree they do, I agree, the same for violence. But this whole topic what we are discussing is on the same thing already what was with Jack Thompson. The only difference that at least half of the community supports Anita. Which is not a bad thing. However, while we did not care about any death threats which were targeting Thompson, we care about Anita, because she is a damsel in distress.
Every case needs good marketing, and we see that playing down here. And that is what somewhat disgusts me, even if I largely agree with the cause. On the one hand, a greater variety in games is never a problem, and truly there are tasteless things and bad writing in the industry, the industry in many ways is still juvenile. But while there is a vocal minority, who trolls around the web, It is sad, that the media just use this to prove their point. Even if probably many of this death threats just the creation of dumb trolls, because you know, this is the Internet. And yeah, some of these can be serious threats, and therefore it is important to investigate those.
But we make this into a feminist agenda, like we do not experience the same thing in every other aspects of the Internet. Do you remember the Star Wars kid? His life was ruined by the net, supposedly.
But my main problem with this whole issue is that I get shaming again. I was shamed when I listened to metal. I was shamed when I had long hair. I was shamed when I played rpg. I was shamed because I am a gamer. I was shamed because I was into computers. I was shamed because of my success, certainly it came because I am white and male. I was shamed because of masturbation (Christian upbringing), I was shamed because watching porn. And I could just go on… And I am shamed again, because I touch the ass of a girl in GTA, like it is not a game about doing bad things… I consider myself an intelligent guy, and I truly try to open myself to Anita’s criticism.
And Anita has many good points, but I think she and her supporters should understand that many of her views or rather expressions stab into the heart of many people. Because her style easily advocates in my opinion that eg. the damsel in distress trope is a bad thing. But it is not, it is just a trope. Or we need more female heroes, why not, especially if there is an audience for that, but Mario games do not become worse by always presenting male main characters. It is like I don’t think it would be better if I could raid tombs with anyone else than Lara Croft(though they did). I totally support more female game creators, but creators should some have some kind of integrity.
Ahhh, so many things could be said, but the main point is, that here intelligent argument would be needed, and thanks to the trolls it quickly turned into trench warfare where in the end the winner is the media with their increased page counts.
Hi G2A Advert on the right side
I was wondering if I was the only one to think about this. Some gamers spoke out against the death threats, others said he deserved it. But my question, why didn’t all these white knight journalists rush to his defense? And more importantly, why did all these woman-hating gamers start harassing him? Did they think he was female? Surely, that must’ve been it.
There are several issue here:
1) Thompson is crusading against violence in video games. Sarkeesian is crusading against the treatment of female characters in video games. These are *not* comparable as far as this discussion goes, as the latter is ultimately a civil rights issue.
2) Unfortunately, the only thing I can find on threats to Thompson is on Wikipedia: “Thompson claimed to have received death threats from listeners of Stern’s show”. He apparently never had to flee his home, nor was he threatened with rape, nor was he, I presume, send photoshopped sexually explicit pictures of himself.
3) Very clever to call her “a damsel in distress”. Hahah (not), I see what you’re doing there. However, saying that the only reason we care about Sarkeesian is because she’s “in distress” is an unsupported claim. I, for one, care about Sarkeesian because she makes valid points about the image and treatment of female characters in video games, and she receives rape and death threats and gets doxxed as a result.
I doubt whether Sarkeesian (or Quinn, or Wu) would’ve had such exposure if it wasn’t for the threats they receive. So the trolls making the threats provide for the marketing against themselves. One of the reasons I don’t think they’re very clever.
I can’t call a multi-billion dollar industry “juvenile”. The industry itself really isn’t. The attitude of game makers, perhaps, but not the industry.
That doesn’t make it a good thing. Threatening people is bad, whether it’s via the internet or not.
Everyone’s agenda should be feminist. Equality should be everyone’s concern.
It’s not just that you’re shamed for things that are basically ok that you can’t be shamed for things that are not. “I was shamed for eating ice cream, and now I’m shamed for kicking my dog!” that sorta thing. Also, I’m not shaming you. Nowhere did I lash out against gamers who are playing the sexist games. What I am lashing out against is players who like those games especially for their sexism, who defend trolls sending rape and death threats, who tell people to “get out of their pool”, who send Intel boycot-threats for advertising on a site they don’t like, and who never ever ever want to change anything about the way women are portrayed in games. If you belong anywhere in those categories, you deserve to be shamed (even if you are an otherwise fine masturbating long-haired porn-watching metal fan).
I also lash out against game companies that keep producing sexist games, and companies that pull advertisements because of boycot-threats from gamers (I’m looking at you, Intel!).
Sure they do, and rightly so! I’m pretty sure the 1960s civil rights movement “stabbed into the heart” of many Southerners when they demanded equality, but that’s not a good reason, ever, to stop making the points.
Sure. Calling African Americans stupid is another. We did away with that trope, no let’s do away with another.
Yes they do. So much so, that a hacking father created a new version of Donkey Kong for his daughter: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/dad-hacks-donkey-kong-for-his….
Which you feel female creators do not, apparently? As opposed to male game creators, that have all the integrity needed to create games in which it is not only possible, but even advantageous, to kill, rape and/or mutilate women? Right on.
I do think that Jack Thompson’s case was comparable, because they were both taking their crusade for there cause and harassed and ridiculed for that. Sure, Jack Thompson did not get rape threats(probably), but we shouldn’t forget that at the time we did not have many of the platforms that we do have now to reach out to these personalities. Heck, in 2005 my only access to the Internet was the school computer.
Now, the other thing is that I still argue, that If you get a death threat or rape threat from Europe while you live in the US from a 13 old, will you take that seriously?
And again, I am not saying, that these threats should be ignored. I say this, because in the past I received legal threats for accusing someone for theft because of piracy on a forum, so I know the feeling when you are unsure about the consequences of this because there are just so many mentally unstable people over the internet. But yet in this case, the media also overblows the story, with ignoring many details which I would be interested in.
And yes, you are right, that all these trolls just help their cause and destroy any chance of real discussion on the topic. But I am also saying that the media people, even Anita are aware of that the way were constructing these videos in a way that is an invite for a dance with the most bastard part of Internet culture.
Being a troll does not mean that you fight against Anita, it is just about to reach the largest coverage you can get. You go into unnecessary arguments, and your only purpose is to divert the topic and destroy conversation.
And more than that, I truly think that many of these people whom are making these threat are underage, whom are playing games not targeted to them. Which is a problem. And I think if someone is aware of the style of communication goes in online matches where men and women both targeted, that person is not surprised about the things happening here.
—————-
I don’t think that Damsel in Distress would be inherently misogynist, or eg. Ms PacMan, as a reason to remove them from pop culture. And when I am saying that Mario games do not get worse without a playable female heroin, I say the same thing for The Great Giana Sisters, where it is the opposite. Yes, you can hack anything into it, but if the creators do not want to include it because of artistic direction, than it is fine.
And this is what I wanted to say on game creators integrity, where I made some unfortunate punctuation. Female game creators share the same integrity as male game creators, I didn’t want to imply anything else. What I wanted to say that if the concept is to make a game where an italian aging plummer to saves a princess and they stick to this for 30 years it is a very cool thing.
If they think that Samus is a good female lead for Metroid, and they did that for 30 years, it is not necessary to introduce a male lead, just because of equality. Tomb Raider does not need a male hero, or the next Beyond Good and Evil game.
We certainly need more female heroes though , but instead of going the cheap way and adding female heroes to already existing franchises, I would be much more happier to see new ips with female leads, and of course more female creators.
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH THOM
If your “identity” is defined by games glorifying excessive rape, abuse, OR violence, you are sick. Plain and simple.
FTFY.
If there’s anything I want Thom to watch, it is this video:
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gamergate-and-women-in-vid…
There are tens of thousands of women supporting #GamerGate and there are many software developers among them. Another interesting article for Thom to read is this one:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate…
Oh, and one more thing. The thing that really bothers me in your article is that you connect bomb threat to #GamerGate… but has the connection really been established? There is not enough evidence to make that connection.
Also you talk about how #GamerGaters are stifling free speech, but you have to ask yourself what happened to all the tens of thousands messages that where deleted at Reddit. We could argue that whole #GamerGate started because of that mass censorship by anti-#GamerGate side. Trying to silence more than 24 thousand voices talking about corruption in games journalism was bound to cause counter-reaction.
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2dz0gs/totalbiscuit_discuss…
Besides what sounds more logical:
A. Tens of thousands of trolls bullying few particular women at games industry.
B. Tens of thousands of people of both sexes trying to get the corrupted game journalists take the responsibility for their actions.
Thom should at least investigate and verify claims from the both sides instead of this one sided reporting. This is not about men versus women. This is not about left versus right political spectrum. This is about libertarian versus authoritarian aspects of the internet.
“First they came…”
Actually I don’t care about the underlying issue. I read Tom’s post and it talks about death threats and that’s all I want to talk about in this context. After making death threat you loose any right to talk about anything. If you want to be heard about an issue that’s not the way to go. The media will focus on the death threat and rightly so. If there is an issue you want to talk about, this is not the right place. You can not use death threat to draw attention to an issue and death threats have been used so right now my attention is focused on what the police can do to catch these assholes and how we can prevent those kind of assholes from issuing death threats ever again. I don’t care about anything else they might have to say. I don’t know what the issue is and I have no interest in knowing about it in this context. I might learn about the issue from somewhere else if it is exposed elsewhere.
Edited 2014-10-15 18:22 UTC
So one idiot trolls and suddenly all arguments are invalid?
By that reasoning, can we equally discard all arguments from both sides?
https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232
https://archive.today/WWyTp
But of course, you don’t hear about those in the news (which is accused of bad journalism, bribery and other unprofessional behaviour, and that is what this whole gamergate affair was about in the first place – not some anti-female propaganda).
I’m not familiar with the issue. I’m not saying the argument is invalid. I’m not interested in the issue because I’ve not heard about it. If it was on the news I would probably be interested and listen to this argument. If that is indeed an important issue, it will probably be reported I guess. I don’t know how important is this issue. Anyway, THIS news is about death threats and therefore the underlying issue is moot in THIS context. It’s always the case with terrorism. I’ve sent money to help the palestinians and I do care a lot about the inhuman conditions they live in. I really want to help them and if I could do anything I would do what I can. However, when someone threatens to blow up in crowded civilian areas to make a point, my only concern is how we can stop this idiot. I don’t want to talk about the palestinian cause right now, in this context, that would not be appropriate. There is a time for that. I do listen to the palestinian cause and I have a lot of respect for their cause but that’s because I saw reports about them, NOT because of threats. So you say the issue here is bad journalism. I didn’t hear about it and I don’t care one bit, I’m not a gamer and I don’t follow the news about game reviews. If I was a gamer I would probably have heard of it and would be very angry about it. I don’t know. All I know is death threats have been used and that is the issue that I want to talk about right now in this context.
Edited 2014-10-16 06:34 UTC
I’m a gamer and first I’ve heard of it was after the first death threats. Then a lot of crap being thrown around and a lot of excuses of threats from a lot of gamergaters.
In my opinion – GamerGate is full of angry bastards.
I’ve only been vaguely following this story for through this website and a couple of others. I clicked through Thom’s link and followed up from there and ended on this site:
http://deadspin.com/the-future-of-the-culture-wars-is-here-and-its-…
A brilliantly insightful article about this issue and it’s place in a much larger social context. Apologies if this has already been posted.
…why would anyone, under any normal circumstance, ever need or want to bring a gun to a university lecture? Even allowing this in the first place is pretty fskcing braindead.
Let me ask you this, do you think police are necessary? If so, then there’s your answer. Why are police necessary? Because criminals exist of course. Unfortunately, when seconds count, the police are minutes away; too often they show up after the crime has been committed and then they just fill out the paperwork. And I would imagine it’s pretty difficult to whip out your cell phone and dial 911 while you’re being beaten, or raped, or robbed, or someone is trying to murder you, etc.
Just as the Bill of Rights (that’s rights, not needs or wants) makes it so that you don’t have to justify your “need” or “want” to talk in order to exercise your right to free speech, it also makes it so that you don’t have to justify your “need” or “want” in order to exercise your right to own and carry a gun for self defense.
In 2012 alone there were 1,214,464 violent crimes committed in the US, and those are just the reported ones. That’s reason enough for anyone to carry a gun under “normal circumstances” and to suggest otherwise is what is in fact pretty fskcing braindead.
Actually, there is overwhelming evidence that a gun does not protect you in any way. And I’m all for people holding firearms, I am against 0 annual training required for that.
The lack of gun culture in US(yes, there is no gun culture in US) paired with propagated machismo complex is the reason why you think that a concealed gun will protect you.
And yes – if you think that bringing a gun to a lecture will protect you, then I kindly suggest you find out who gets killed by hostage takers first.
I’d love to see that “evidence”. It is true that a gun will not always protect you, but it’s also true that if you need a gun and don’t have one, it won’t protect you either. I’m sure quite a few of the people who were murdered, raped, robbed, burglarized, and beaten up last year (over 1M total in the US) wish they had a gun to protect themselves.
In the meantime here’s some evidence proving that a gun can in fact protect you. Just a handful of news stories from the past 1-1.5 months, not an extensive list by any means:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Man-shot-in-apparent-sel…
http://fox2now.com/2014/10/12/gunman-shot-by-store-clerk-in-attempt…
http://www.al.com/news/tuscaloosa/index.ssf/2014/09/76-year-old_man…
http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/story/accused-armed-robber-shot-…
http://www.turlockjournal.com/archives/27531/
http://www.click2houston.com/news/meat-store-manager-shoots-attempt…
http://www.newsnet5.com/homepage-showcase/police-multiple-people-sh…
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/pa_rep_shooting_…
http://www.koco.com/news/police-shawnee-homeowner-shoots-armed-burg…
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/10/east-side_flint_m…
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/news/2014/09/18/sapd–man-shot…
http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/26528353/suspected-burglar-shot-by-r…
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/video_springfield_cl…
http://fox59.com/2014/09/08/person-shot-killed-in-attempted-robbery…
http://www.kpho.com/story/26516768/pd-suspect-shot-killed-while-try…
It’s actually pretty easy to use a gun. 99% of people aren’t using them to snipe out bad guys from 100 yards away, they’re using them to defend their homes, and draw on the bad guy who’s a few feet away. It’s not rocket science, it’s basically point and if need be click. Can’t get much simpler than that. I agree that the 3 rules of firearm safety should be preached often, and the media could help with that, but of course the media hates guns so it won’t happen anytime soon.
Oh and statistics show that concealed carriers are actually not only less likely to shoot innocent bystanders than “trained” cops, but they’re also less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen.
Actually, facts and statistics and local news stories (like the handful I posted above, again just from the past month or so) are why I and millions of male and female Americans know that concealed guns do in fact protect people.
Something tells me that far more unarmed hostages get shot and killed than armed hostages… in fact I would bet that the overwhelming majority of people murdered, robbed, raped, etc., are unarmed.
Who said it’s always going to be a hostage situation? And who says you always have to draw your gun? At least if you have it, you have the chance should the opportunity arise during the attack. Again, the facts show that guns do protect people on a daily basis.
WTF!?!?!!? I am all for firearm ownership, but when it comes to public events, the organiser has the right to ban firearms. If they can ban non-venue-bought alcohol, then how can the firearms be allowed?!?!?!
Or did the NRA retards take away the liberty to enforce no-gun rules in your own premises under the guise of liberty!!?!?!?
I’m by no means an expert, but maybe the university and/or venue receive government/state funding or something?
Do you know where concealed firearms are not allowed? The legislative institutions – that is the organisations that issued those laws, have excluded themselves from the effect of that law.
I think you get it wrong, the organisers can deny people from entering with guns, it is just that the police can’t do that. They are arguing that because it is legal, it is not the law enforcement’s task to do that, but the security’s. Like if you go to a football game, it is not the police who stops you from carrying in any knife or gun, but the security guard.
Police is there to protect the public, and whenever there is a threat to the public the police is the ones that have full authority.
Security guards are for a different purpose – protect the premises/speakers, not the guests.
Congrats to the GamerGate folks for their promotion from trolls to terrorists. Would like to see a single confirmed violent act from them to support that definition though. Still rather funny to see OSNews pushing political agenda down our throats.
To be a terrorist you don’t need to kill anyone, you just have to threaten to do so to gain some benefit.
How Effective is the ‘Terrorism’ Label as a Form of Delegitimizing a Political Opponent?
http://www.e-ir.info/2013/07/18/the-delegitimizing-power-of-the-ter…
Are you saying that terrorism is no longer terrorism because it gets misused?
I think there should be a differentiation between threat of terrorism and terrorism. This email was likely some 4chan kiddy trolling with little chance of the likelihood of them actually carrying out the act.
I think they threatened rather than performed terrorism. By defining terrorism so loosely I think it waters down the word and it’s overused enough as it is.
It’s a bit like saying threat of rape is literally rape because the mere act of making the threat violates the individual. That means I was literally raped over Xbox live once.
What concerns me more is the aggressive tone used, on both sides, that spreads to news, tv, media like fire. A stage of hate hard to escape from.
If there ever was a reason to censor the internet/media its there, visible for all. Thanks 🙁
Edited 2014-10-15 15:21 UTC
Political agenda?! This is a textbook case of using terror (threats of violence) in order to try to silence some group. The word terrorist is used correctly.
(I’m aware that the current use of the word have mostly shifted towards violent acts against the US and their allies but the proper definition still stands and should be used whenever it fits. And here it does.)
Thom, thank for you continuing to call attention to this issue, and more specifically, to the appalling thing that is GamerGate. I agree with your call for gaming companies to take action now (and no, not the wrongheaded Intel-style action), and, sorry if they worry about economic hurt, but really, do you want the business of people who conduct themselves as those who identify with GamerGate do?
I think there are a number of issues going on with the whole gamergate thing – it’s gone way beyond a “simple” issue of journalistic ethics and turned into that nastiest outpouring of misogyny and hatred I’ve seen online in years, much of it I think rooted in a defensive response to from those who identify very very strongly as a gamer and who have very specific ideas on how that identity is and should be defined
The games industry has expanded hugely in recent years, between platforms and content, and we’ve also seen much more ambition in terms of themes dealt with, particularly from indies. When you add to that the sheer size of the industry and it increasing prevalence in mainstream media it’s only natural that it will gain the attention of cultural and academic commentators and critics.
IMHO if gaming is to genuinely stake a claim to being an art form, then as an industry it simply has to accept being studied from vastly different perspectives than previously, including feminist, structuralist, cultural “whatever-ist” perspectives that are a world away from the ‘how it looks, how it plays’ reviews that we may be more accustomed to/comfortable with.
In my view, producers and consumers of gaming culture have to learn to debate and discuss the issues that these critiques raise and where necessary change. In some ways this is no different to how representations of different ethnicities that were acceptable decades ago are acceptable no longer, and as with that previous change, there will be people who find that enormously threatening.
Well, tough!
Nothing whatsoever excuses the ranting, frothing-at-the-mouth hatred, vilification and vile threats against people regardless of their perspective.
Edited 2014-10-15 14:15 UTC
Why should game companies or gamers in general feel the need to denounce violence and threats?
A few trolls are not the gaming industry. They don’t represent game players in general either.
I don’t see the connection or agree with those who do. Once you allow other people to define who you are associated with you’ve lost and have to spend time being defensive about things you didn’t even do. So just ignore it.
Why should Muslims in general feel the need to denounce ISIS and other terrorist organizations? After all, those individuals does not represent Islam in general.
I don’t think they should. Only ignorant people equate some Muslims with all Muslims.
And we all know that there aren’t enough ignorant people in the world to make a difference, right?
For the same reason non-Christians pressure Christians to denounce the Westboro morons.
That sword cuts both ways. But the group that gets the respect, is the group that beheads their opponents.
We should ignore death and rape threats?
Let the police handle it. It isn’t a problem of gamers in general. Certainly not Intel’s or EA’s or Microsoft’s problem.
Sure, sexism isn’t a problem of men in general. Racism isn’t a problem of caucasions in general. LGBT targeted violence isn’t a problem of straight people in general. However, if enough men speak out against sexism, or enough white people against racism, or enough straight folks against homophobia, the problem will go away a lot quicker, and those being sexist/racist/homphobic will know that what they are doing isn’t ok, and isn’t backed by the majority of people they identify with. However, in gaming it seems quite the reverse: this forum is full of gamers that reply with “death/rape threats aren’t ok, but hey, they got it coming”. Which only feeds those making the death/rape threats.
As for large companies like Intel or EA, they could very simply take a moral stand, like e.g. Apple and Google did against prop 8 in California. But they don’t, as it hurts their business, so they pull their ads if the trolls demand so, and they keep making sexist games cause that’s what sells. That makes those companies implictly and explicitly complicit.
As some novelists have found, as soon as you stop making what sells and start writing “message” people stop reading your books.
If you want to send messages you still need to make it fun.
No one buys or even plays for free games that aren’t fun or make them feel bad about themselves. That’s not what games are for.
If some people want to make <sarcasm level=”heavy”>Great Art</sarcasm> then they will have to be starving artists.
People are messed up, but this is getting a little extreme. I do not know anybody in real life (or away from keyboard if you prefer) who cares enough about GamerGate to even follow the news closely, let alone perpetrate such over the top actions. I’m not saying that people do not say stupid things, especially over the internet, but this is starting to sound manufactured. Especially, the part about canceling over concealed carry permit holders.
Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abiding. They are also among the least anonymous, unlike internet trolls. That is why non-hypocritical states, like Texas, not only allow concealed carry permit holders to have weapons in the Capitol building, they put in an express lane, (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/us/guns-get-a-pass-at-texas-capit…).
I really hope that this is not all manufactured for publicity over games/guns/whatever. It will very likely come out if it was. Nobody can predict the outcome over the backlash in that case, but I know it will be that much harder for my wife and daughter to be taken seriously as writers, gamers, and entrepreneurs.
I wonder about that too. Surely an event such as a conference would not expect the police to secure it? They would have their own security and rules about who can enter the venue and what they can bring with them.
I’m not saying that it is manufactured, but I am certainly starting to think that it might be. Terrorism is, above all, about sending a message. If you give in to real terrorists then they win. However, it is a double edged sword. If you give in to pathetic trolls and thereby promote them to terrorists, whilst simultaneously taking a swipe at gun control…
I agree that it’s not broadly appealing to having your beach volleyball game focus its markting campaign on how realistic the boob giggling is. But it seems to be naïve to expect that video games are supposed to transcend the popular culture, particulary as the market continues to signal that it wants games that are deemed to be more mature (e.g. drug use, violence and murder, sexual situations, etc.)
Those games are being made by multi-billion companies. Whether we can “expect” them to be civil I don’t know, but at least we can hold them accountable.
You are going to have as much luck keeping game makers “accountable” for having near naken women in a brothel level in an RPG game as you are for having hordes of faceless brown people to blow up in the next Call of Duty game.
If that were true in general, women would still not be allowed to vote, and African Americans would still be 2nd class citizens (or slaves). I’m not saying I expect direct success, but success starts with the first step.
And demanding that there be no brothels in games is something that barely anyone is demanding. Having a better representation for those characters is better than closing a blind eye on the fact that those exist.
A good start would be that the background is exposed and some feeling is added to the surroundings/questlines. So that there can be empathy towards some characters.
There are trolls on both sides of this debate that are making it impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Thom, your obvious editorial bias towards one side of this argument is not helping matters at all, and I implore you to actually look into the other side before you potentially end up on the wrong side of history.
Fundamentally, #gamergate is about accountability and honesty in gaming journalism. Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkessian are non-entities at this point, just highly visible troll bait. The bulk of people using the #gg hashtag on twitter have moved on to pressuring advertisers to stop supporting gaming websites such as kotaku, gamersutra, polygon, and others because they feel that they have a strong editorial bias towards their friends in the industry, and have also entered into an incestuous relationship with the games industry, trading positive reviews for expensive perks.
You can’t control a hashtag on twitter, any troll can hijack it to make threats against others, and I hope the person responsible is caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law. There is simply no place in debate for threats of violence. I would ask you to not poison the well and brand everyone in #gamergate as a terrorist because that’s incredibly irresponsible for anyone to do, especially the editor of a website that has the word ‘news’ in the masthead. I have been reading this website for the better part of 5 years and it pains me to see it become a shill for one side of an argument over video games. Save your hate for Ebola, please.
If you want to see what people in #gamergate are actually doing, please swing by http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/ and observe the people you consider to be terrorists first hand.
Not all sides are equal, or worth equal investigation. “Both sides of the debate” is an excuse to treat minority fringe opinions as equally valid as the main stream ones.
Fundamentally, you are completely wrong, either by ignorance or by malice. See the link that siraf72 posted above, for thorough background information.
Because you’ve proclaimed it on a web site as so? How very arogant of you.
Opinions are just that, opinions. And as there are an infinite combination of factors that go into shaping them, there can be no universally “correct” one.
No, because human decency trumps people who make rape and death threats.
Sure, but some opinions are a lot more valid than others. For example the opinion “Main stream games made by multi billion dollar companies should stay clear from blatent sexism and misogyny” is a lot more valid than “If you don’t agree with someone on the internet, it is ok to doxx them and send rape and death threats”. If you don’t understand that, there’s no hope for you.
We could also say that “Main stream games made by multi billion dollar companies should stay clear from drug use, murder, crime, glorifying war and violence, etc.” as well. The problem is that consumers have shown they don’t want the heavily sanitized games that would be left if you elimiated all of the things that some find uncomfortable or objectionable. So you are saying that your pet cause should be given more weight than the pet cause of another, if at all, when the popular culture at large doesn’t appear to care.
We could say that, except there’s a difference between drug use, murder, crime, glorifying war and violence etc., and sexism and misogyny. The first categories are about morality, the second is about equality. Those are *not* the same categories.
I somehow doubt that EA or the like would create a lynch-the-n*r game, or a sim-concentration camp, even if it were by popular demand. There are lines that even money-making companies dare not cross. What they seemingly fail to understand is that games that allow you (or even entice you) to kill women (and *specifically* women) in gruesome ways is just as bad. That, or they understand perfectly but don’t give a rat’s ass because they can get away with it.
I find it shocking that you call decent treatment of women and equality in general a “pet cause” (or I would find it shocking if you wouldn’t be the umptieth misguided gamer to say so). Luckily, “the popular culture at large” in this case means “hoards of white male sexist gamers”, so I do think there’s still reason to believe this will change, even if slowly.
If “equality” is to be taken seriously at all, it must presented as a moral issue. Slavery ended when the idea of humans as chattel became about morality.
I label any cause that a group of people makes their focal issue a “pet cause.” I am a military veteran who despises first person shooters, like Call of Duty, that trivialize the death and maiming of war and put it into a slick, desensitizing package where consequences don’t matter; and I bring it up often to people I talk to about games. So see, for me, that is my pet cause. Get over yourself, people aren’t “misguided” just because they don’t share your point of view or care about the things you care about.
Edited 2014-10-16 15:37 UTC
I’ll give you that, as I used “morality” in a somewhat narrow sense, but dictionaries seem to disagree with me. But there’s still various categories about what to apply a “right” or “wrong” to. Issues like violence effect all of us (though, as you know, there’s specific violence against women that does need to be addressed), but sexism and misogyny is about one group of people (men) treating another group badly (women). That makes it akin to racism and homophobia, and less to violence.
Fair enough. I read it as slightly insulting.
I’m not sure what you mean by that. Should I get over the fact that I dislike the maltreatment of women, or what?
Morality is a purely subjective and arbitrary concept, trying to pretend it’s anything else always leads to trouble. In this case, slavery never “ended,” in fact there are more slaves in the world today than almost any other time in history.
Edited 2014-10-16 19:33 UTC
Ah, the old “There are two sides to this” troll. Nice.
There really isn’t any other *good* side than the one Thom is on. Sometimes there really is right and wrong.
If you don’t get it, I don’t think anyone can explain it to you over text. An in person would be required to have an honest discussion on the topic.
Put more simply:
“Some say the sun rises in the East, some say it rises in the West. The truth is probably somewhere in between…”
Yup
Here we go again…
Utah has a concealed carry law.
One effect is that anyone who pulls a gun is likely to be shot by someone else before he gets a second shot of because there will be lots of armed people in the audience.
So in any normal circumstance, there should be at least as many ARMED defenders if not more – I doubt many gamers will bother to be lectured on how evil and misogynistic and horrible persons they are, so won’t show up, but the SJWs, the gender feminists, and such will show up, and they are equally free to get a CCW license and bring their guns in.
If she doesn’t want ANYONE to have a gun, then what are the Police supposed to carry? See Ferguson Missouri for why it might not be a good idea to have armed cops.
Perhaps we could have the cops strip-search everyone. That will really preserve women’s dignity, like the TSA would have strange men looking at womens’ bodies in the porn-scanners to prevent (or is it pervert) terrorism.
“Annie, get your (own) gun”. Sam Colt made the sexes equal in ways Elizabeth Katy Stanton and Susan B. Anthony only hoped to.
Her complaint is that the Government won’t defend her. Well, why is she not capable of defending herself? Again, are men and women equal, or do women require men to act to defend them?
Yeah, that’s a great relief that only one shot will be fired.
Worked out great for Abe Lincoln.
LOL, now Abraham Lincoln made into this.
Pity I’m out of popcorn…
JFK would have been a good example, except there were many shots fired, but MLK is equally as good.
Absolutely… if by “good example” you actually meant “bad red herring.”
>Her complaint is that the Government won’t defend her.
Her biggest problem is believing the Govt is supposed to protect her. The SC has ruled that is no duty for the govt (police) to protect her.
I find it fascinating if she actually asked the police to perform pat-downs. Why not ask about metal detectors? Or other security measures? Maybe I missed something, I’ll go back and re-read.
Yeah, I don’t actually see that stated anywhere in the sourced article from usu.edu. This is part of the problem. Right here. Poor communication. At least when it’s in the comments section, it’s easy to dismiss. It seems like most of these articles on this topic (all sites) are just riddled with poor communication. It’s so bad, it almost feels like it’s on purpose. It feels like we’re getting trolled by the media.
Here’s Anita’s tweet on the matter: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/522208245612437505
There’s a few others in her stream, including a more generic reference to “security measures” in https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/522265618456662016
I wholeheartedly agree the people actually threatening these woman deserve a special place in hell. They are crazy wacko basement dwellers globing onto the latest scandal that lets them act out their anti-anything fantasies with maximum exposure. They are vile repulsive sad excuses for human beings. Is that denouncement enough?
Thing is what they absolutely are not are gamers that have thoughtful and reasoned criticisms of these women’s viewpoints. They are mindless anti-feminist. They are misogynist. They are [fill in appropriate mental disorder here]. They are just stupid idiots re-tweeting stupidity for the lulz. They are all these things, but I am not one of them.
I think that there is a lot of truth in the videos that Ms. Sarkeesian has made. She has every right to make them. They make you think, and I would like to believe that is ultimately what they are for. That said, what unnerves me is we eventually get to a point where you post this:
Her videos series didn’t start out about rape, abuse, and violence. It was about things like Super Mario Brothers (save the princess)… Can we all step back and try and gain a bit of perspective? I personally think building a bridge from that to things like beating up prostitutes in GTA is a bridge too far… Is the fact that she is right on about rape, abuse, and violence mean she is right about everything?
I LIKE Super Mario Brothers… Does that mean I am a sick woman hater?
That is a rhetorical question, because I have a few brain cells and understand the concept of fantasy in gaming. And in movies. And in books. And in life in general. No, not all fanatasy is ok, but it is a self-correcting problem – things that are not ok eventually become fringe and ultimately cease to exist.
That is the whole problem with her carefully constructed criticism of the gaming industry – its the same all over. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree that woman are often portrayed poorly in games, I just recognize that the same sins exist in virtually all forms of popular media. The token dumb girl with a rack in Michael Bay movies who needs to be saved constantly. 95% of all porn. Anything Bill Maher ever says about Sarah Palin (who I agree is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed, but fair is fair), etc. etc.
She could have made virtually the same video series about movies with the same arguments and rationale. Or books. She would have been right about those too.
But I can’t really talk about that here can I?Because I will just get shouted down for changing the subject. After all, what we are all here for is to denounce these idiots and support this woman’s right to criticize the industry.
Thing is I do denounce these idiots and I do support this woman’s right to criticism, it just happens that I think most of what she wrote is nothing more than sensationalism carefully designed to provoke people (the fact that it is also true is kind of irrelevant). Its generally called provocative journalism, and I equate it to a spit ball in baseball – its what you do when you don’t have anything better.
Again, I’m not saying she is wrong. What I’m saying is it doesn’t matter – she isn’t pursuing change, she is perusing controversy. If you guys don’t realize this you are truly clueless…
In short I’ll take her arguments much more seriously when a year passes without a Michael Bay movie breaking into the top 10 at the box office. Or when the number one book isn’t a Fifty Shades of Grey sequel. Or when a conservative woman can speak in public without being called a cunt.
Until then I will play the games I like. Some of them, like Super Mario World, are about saving helpless damsels in distress. Just because a game like this exists, which admittedly doesn’t portray women ideally, doesn’t preclude games that do portray woman well from existing. Go make them, I might like them too.
Like any piece of provocative art – it’s there to make you think. Some people just don’t want to and stick to one detail propagated by misogynistic a**holes.
Except that she never said that.
The point is that it’s not well rounded depiction and only serves as a reinforcement that violence against women is normal – that leads to desensitisation towards the violence.
I know she never said that. But it bothers me that people here are taking what she did say and twisting it into an excuse to call people who don’t agree with them sick. I personally don’t like games like GTA or whatever – I have 3 kids so most of my gaming consist of Wii games and minecraft.
That said, while I agree that some of the games out there contain content that is seriously offensive (to me), that doesn’t make people who enjoy playing them sick. They are no more sick than people who pay to go see Michael Bay’s horrible movies, or read Game of Thrones (which I like), or countless other mindless pursuits of entertainment rife with seriously poor portrayals of women. Its everywhere. Im sorry but society simply isn’t as “enlightened” as she would like it to be, and I don’t think it wants to be either, at least not when it comes to fantasy…
Seriously, I think a game that actually simulates rape and abuse of women is a pretty disgusting thing, but frankly I have never seen such a game. Do they actually exist? What I have seen are games like GTA that contain violent interactions with prostitutes and what not. I personally think it is vile, but I would argue that maybe lumping examples like this into a video series with games like Super Mario Brothers is not the best way to convince people to see the light… It seems to me more like a good way to stir up controversy, which is I think the whole point.
Thats the thing. I don’t care. I don’t choose my mindless entertainment based on how well rounded it’s portrayal of women is, or how effectively it discourages violence against women. In fact I don’t want my mindless entertainment to have anything at all to do with that. Im all for games that contain well rounded portrayals of women, but Im not going to buy a game because of that – Ill buy it if its fun.
I remember way back when there was a game for xbox called Malice. I don’t remember the plot at all, but the protagonist was a tough little red headed girl with a giant hammer. I didn’t love that game or anything, but I remember it being fun enough that I actually bothered to finish it. This whole argument made me think of it because from what I remember it probably fits into this “ideal” that her videos seem to gravitate towards. Strong kick ass female character. I didn’t play that game because of that though, I just thought it was fun.
Games are supposed to be fun.
Well there’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custer‘s_Revenge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY2AqKCpGkk
And in related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RapeLay
PS. Google also suggested “Custer’s Revenge the remake” and it turns out somebody did it, all in “fun” :/
http://www.pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7251
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juEyCNuPyTc (NSFW! …still, it remains on YT)
I also found Santa’s Revenge… hey, it’s all “fun” :/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMtR-9AWD6U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiYnpdtWXC4
Custer’s Revenge Documentary – Atari 2600 //from the times, those issues were raised back then
Edited 2014-10-22 00:10 UTC
Thom, you might as well create topics such as this for a change:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2014/10/11/t-shirt-company-force…
Just posting from total ignorance of this story — why can’t the people making these threats be found? Because they’re using Tor! So this is all staged by an agency that is going to actually do some overt killing, resulting in a cry from the public to outlaw the use of Tor.
Anita Sarkeesian wrote her own the death threats herself and when confronted by legal consequences when it was traced to herself: chose “no contest” in the case against her.
She does it for the money and political influence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgHmTmUjFF0&feature=youtube_gdata
All of her qualms debunked and proven wrong.
Thunderf00t (the author of the video) is an know atheist, egalitarian and proven advocate of freedom, liberty, female rights and science proponent.
(this guy even went so far as to suggest imposing the penis tax) for the remaining 7c on the dollar that the female salaries gap is.
This entire GamerGate ordeal is a lot of noise about nothing. It started as a commentary on journalistic integrity but quickly disintegrated into a chaotic and pointless yelling match.
Trolls and deviants enjoy the attention and the opportunity to openly indulge their destructive impulses. Social justice activists love the attention, negative or positive, due to the credibility it gives them to promote their cause. The media loves the chaos and controversy for the hits it generates. Onlookers and commentators jump into the mix to present their opinion having already chosen a side based on preconceived biases.
All semblance of reasonable discussion has long since died out or become indistinguishable from the noise. The resounding ruckus is more a commentary on how the internet works than anything else.
What makes the internet great is also it’s greatest failing. Anyone can say anything for any reason without consequence and everyone’s opinion has the same value as everyone else’s.
The internet is a mud pit, to put it mildly. Anyone that makes themselves a public figure is going to get dirty. People who purposefully place themselves in the limelight must expect some portion of the internet to treat them in the most despicable and vile manner imaginable, and they should expect this to only get worse as their fame increases. This doesn’t make them special or give them credibility in any way; this is just the nature of the internet and fame in general.
It’s important for everyone to keep in mind:
* Those yelling the loudest rarely represent the majority.
* The worst elements of a group do NOT represent the group as a whole.
* Fame brings negative attention as well as positive.
* The internet is an ugly place; expect the worst behavior.
As it stands, both sides will continue yelling, confident in the righteousness of their own position, until people get tired of talking about it and it all dies down.
http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179
I’m sorry Thom but your too caught up in the internet victim routine. There are sexual harassment and misogynistic problems in this world and the majority of these crimes are not being commuted by anonymous blow hards at a keyboard.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/03/meg-lanker-simons-hoax-uni…
Edited 2014-10-18 05:33 UTC
1
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Synapse)