Anita Sarkeesian cancels Utah campus appearance after threats of a "Montreal-style massacre"


You know what would be nice?

If all the sock puppets & astroturfers extolling everyone to ignore GamerGate & co. because then they will go away would express that same failed argument to the bigots making threats…

“Hey, man, if you just ignore the feminists, just you, you with the firearm, would ignore the feminists then I’m sure they would go away, you’re just giving them the attention they want!”

But that can’t happen, because then they would be talking to themselves, and they never listen.

Invoking the Montreal massacre & its perpetrator is something that happens in extremist MRA circles, which draw in misogynists from all the little fragmented bits of hate groups. It’s a disgusting tell, that those losers find that one loser to be their hero.


Claiming “feminists have ruined my life” is probably an admission that there was already something pretty seriously wrong with your life before any feminists even came on the scene.


The sad thing is, it takes so little effort to make a “credible threat”. There may not even be any real danger for all we know, but since we can’t actually determine that with any reasonable validity, we can’t afford to take any chances.

It’s like SWATing people - it works because if people choose not to respond as if the threat is real, their asses are on the line if it turns out to be true.


I too wonder whether this is only sexist assholes talking out their asses, or if there is a real credible threat.

I don’t blame the lady for refusing to talk if the police refuse to ensure her safety, though. That’s called survival.


i can’t believe they actually cited the open carry law as a the reason. i expected them to try and dismiss it, but i assumed they would at least use some sort of “no time/costs too much” excuse. so horrible.

1 Like

I moved 19 posts to a new topic: Gun control and Gamergate


Well no, who would blame her? But please note, the police have no power to confiscate people’s firearms in a public venue in this situation.

A private venue is another matter entirely - although you’d probably have to replace police with private security.


Why can’t you believe this?

If I ask the police to do something which they do not have the power to do, I should expect them to have no option but to refuse.

If I speak in a public place, and the state in which I am speaking legally allows concealed carry in said public place, I can have no reasonable expectation of the police searching people and confiscating their concealed weapons, even in the face of targetted threats.


They’d have done it in a hot second if it was somebody important, though. Can you imagine Obama getting a death threat and the police saying “Gosh, Mr. President, I’m sorry but we’re just not allowed to stop people bringing guns to your speech”?


So basically the open carry states have now found a way to intimidate any public gathering of a feminist nature whatsoever. The black shirts have most assuredly arrived.


I have to admit I’m curious what level of evidence is required to elevate a threat to “credible”.


Irony central: In 1999, Gamers strongly protest that videogames don’t cause violence. 15 years later, gamers threaten violence because of videogames.


Unknown. How many times have bomb threats been called in due to a test? If you paid attention to all bomb threats, school would never happen :stuck_out_tongue:

I also would doubt this threat also. The guys who are upset over this probably spend all of their free money on CPUs, video cards, Mountain Dew, and Cheetos, leaving no money left for guns – guns are expensive. Besides, their parents would notice if they left the basement carrying a rifle.

1 Like

They would have done it for anyone in the Praetorian class. I.e. elected anyone, LEO, and corporate important people. She is still an individual citizen, similar to those reading this here. We don’t rank this level of protection and never have.


This is complete nonsense. Many presidents have been both threatened and attacked - including Obama - without feeling the need to illegally infringe upon people’s legal rights in public spaces.

If the President feels threatened in a public venue where concealed carry is allowed, they have the option of private one instead. And if they refuse to change plans and go ahead with the public venue, they have the option of armed security in the form of the Secret Service.

I’ve never, ever heard of people being denied concealed carry in a public place for the sake of protecting a president, even with four different presidents having died due to attacks in public venues by assassins with concealed weapons.

1 Like

Finally, an incident that falls firmly under the rubric of “terrorist threats” to U.S. citizens. Can we assume the Department of Homeland Security is investigating these terrorist threats? Is the FBI seeking out these terrorists who try to affect policy through the use of terror and the threat of mass murder?


Important or elected? There is a difference. The law is stiffer for the second. An elected official supposedly serves a community and represents more than their own will. When you threaten or assassinate an elected official you are doing more than terrorizing and murder. Your are depriving others of their “best” representation.

While I have no doubt Anita Sarkeesian does represent some educated thinking people she is not elected.

Well, in a supreme irony, “gamers” in 1999 were responding to accusations that games cause violence with death threats. The irony was apparently lost on them even then.



Oh wait, someone actually felt so fucking afraid for her life due to gun rights assholes and gamergate assholes that she refused to speak on a topic close to her heart.


They do not get a write-off as some harmless basement dweeb if they are successfully intimidating people into silence. That is deeply fucked.

Where are the cries of censorship now, I wonder. Well, not really wonder.