Gamergate as a hate-group

boing
113

It depends on how credible the threat.

It depends on how important the issue was that I was second guessing myself on.

It strikes me that you are the one being emotional here. By using a “always stand up to terror no matter what” approach you are completely ignoring rationality. In the case of Sarkeesian’s talk at USU being cancelled - she is cancelling an event where she was going to talk to some people about feminism. How important is that? There are people out there who place far more importance on her not talking than she places on talking. Basically she’s saying that even if there is a remote possibility that this threat is legit, like say one-in-a-million then 1/1000000 times 15 dead people (Montreal Massacre level violence) is a greater cost than the benefit of her talk.

If your point is that when you make personal decisions about your own life you always have to factor in some long term cost-benefit to society where we let terrorists win or not, I don’t think individuals have to shoulder that burden in their individual decisions. We hire specialists to investigate and prevent these kinds of actions just like we hire specialists to do everything else. Plus, using the same calculation, does one one-millionth of a Montreal Massacre do more to make people in the future afraid than Sarkeesian showing up for her talk and there being no massacre do to make them brave? Considering Sarkeesian has been giving talks for years and I’ve hardly hear of them, I’d say no.

You would never argue that no one should ever do anything to make themselves or other safer because that would be stupid. But it sounds like you are saying no one should ever do anything to make themselves or others safer if the threat is from another person. Threats from other people, from a rational, non-emotional calculation, are exactly like threats from not-people. The question is risk vs. reward.

7 Likes
114

It’s interesting that you keep trying to apply agency to the person who did not choose the label or in any way force its application.

If you tell others to apply a label to yourself, you don’t get to be upset when they do what you told them to do. And if you think the label’s meaning isn’t clear, you have no one to blame for a lack of clarity but yourself. No one else is compelled to do anything beyond applying the label, as you asked, with its generally understood definition.

Tell people to apply the “Nazi” label to you, and they’re going to do so. Don’t like what that label means? It’s in no one’s control but your own. Stop trying to place blame on others for applying a stereotype to you after you’ve told them what stereotype to apply to you. Either accept what the stereotype means, work to change the stereotype, or stop asking for it to be applied to you.

2 Likes
115

The authorities should pursue those who issue specific threats with the same vigor and techniques that they employed to bring down The Silk Road and LuLzSec.

I have a hard time believing some of the people issuing these threats are near as careful in covering their tracks. They should be easy to find and van.

1 Like
116

Agreed. Although, it would also be nice to prevent further threats/harassment, and I’m not really sure how they’d go about doing that.

1 Like
117

The authorities can’t prevent further threats / harassment.

Only the leaders of organizations and movements can denounce violence and disown those within their ranks that resort to threats.

118

The first step is bringing down the ones making the threats pour mieux encourager les autres. Not saying it will work 100%, but it will probably make marginal cases stop and think first.

1 Like
119

When have I blamed anybody for anything? I do not make this out to be a personal problem, merely an inaccurate and simplistic way to handle such perceived problems. My point is that all labels are gross oversimplifications, whether they are defined, identified with, or not. The map is not the territory. Since categories work as a tool for organizing one’s thoughts, the responsibility is always that of the person using it. Just like it is the responsibility of whoever identifies Meleagris gallopavo to know what they doing, while the turkey itself has no such obligation.

I know this acutely because I claim membership in no group or category - species, gender, race, nationality, ideology, etc. But I am subjected to labels on a daily basis because it is how other people think, and it would be a fool’s errand to think I could “set them straight” about applying labels to me which I find offensive. I have tried this years ago, but it does not work. There are too many categories people take for granted and it requires too much work to explain. And others have no obligation to perceive me the way I perceive myself, they are responsible for their own use of labels just as I am of mine. But there is no functional basis for any equivalency or consonance of our respective terms to be assumed.

120

And Sarkeesian can give the talk — or use it as the base for another talk — at another venue where she feels safer. The potential shootist has achieved very little in the grand scheme of things, just delayed by a little a little bit of enlightenment for Utah.

1 Like
121

You really spent a lot of time typing to basically say nothing.

2 Likes
122

Oh, honey, stop wasting your time typing only to say nothing. Again.

oh no! A man is pointing out the obvious, that I am emotional and angry about an emotionally charged and anger inducing subject about women being harmed and their lives being threatened! Why! That never happens!

7 Likes
123

It’s also an effective “othering” tool. Helps to reframe the issue away from the misogny and make it all about “teh crazy!” It was a tactic used after the Santa Barbara shootings earlier this year.

5 Likes
124

If this kind of hateful shit is not reported on, well, what kind of message does that send to the victims of the hateful shit?

4 Likes
125

That is completely, totally, utterly different from someone actively choosing a label and asking that people apply it to them. Which happens to be the situation at hand. So a bit more like self-identifying as a Nazi (and then getting upset at the bad connotations that includes) than scientifically labeling turkeys.

Turkey: “I’m a meleagris gallopavo”
Scientist: “Ah, so you’re an omnivorous bird who likes to eat acorns and nuts”
Turkey: “No, we don’t! How dare you say that?”
Scientist: “err…”
Turkey: “Stop judging me!”
[…]

Scientist: “Yeah, it said only a small number of turkey-like birds could ever be eaten for Thanksgiving dinner, too, but it refused to show any clear indication that they were a separate group.”
Scientist 2: “Could you pass a drumstick?”

3 Likes
126

I said to report it, but to people who can actually do something about it. Telling me about it still does nothing. If you think you’re life or health is in danger, I’m the last person you want to tell. What can I do? Recoil in horror, shake my head, then close the tab and read another story? Tell my girlfriend “people on the internet are still jerks” over coffee tonight? This is all a bit off of what I was actually saying, since I really don’t have a clue. Posting these things online might help, or they might not, or they might make things worse. I don’t know, but I do think the question has some validity.

I’m guessing the people spreading the actual threats (not just hateful “shit”, thats fine, irresponsible and idiotic, but ultimately within their rights) WANT us to pay attention to them, that seems to be the primary motivation for the threats. So by spreading their voice, we’re following their goals. We’re letting them shape the discussion. We shouldn’t be, they (often) don’t have anything worth saying.

1 Like
127

It seems to me that you might not have read me very carefully. I said to avoid indulging in fear so that one can perform calm risk assessments. Notice how news media are quick to report “fears” and “terror”, but hardly ever discuss such matters pragmatically in terms of goals and risks. They do this to be sensational, and I think it is a grave disservice to people.

How important (or, indeed, significant) this may be depends upon who you ask. I would hope that Sarkeesian would communicate whatever she feels she needs to. I haven’t been impressed with her as a feminist speaker, but I think the only way to make anything of this is through debate. Anybody who can’t handle discussions and prefers to wish them away is explicitly promoting ignorance - they deserve neither respect nor cooperation. If they can’t articulate their concerns, they deserve to stew in their castration anxiety.

But is this effective risk assessment? One-in-a-million is probably safer odds than dying in a car collision or natural disaster while going to her talk. Never mind that agreeing to oppression from other people might increase one’s risk, rather than lessen it.

Maybe individuals should not ideally be responsible for this, but it seems to me that they are. Even deciding to seek assistance is a decision, who to ask and what you are willing to trust them with requires one’s consideration. Also, not everyone does necessarily have anyone they can afford or trust to help them - you are assuming a lot there.

How does it sound like I am saying this, when it isn’t what I said? My point was the opposite, that people are not defenseless victims. We can’t do just “anything”, that would be nebulous. Those concerned would need to decide upon their strategies for dealing with such events. Getting angsty and putting all of our plans on hiatus until we feel safe again reflects an all-or-nothing approach which strikes me as unrealistic. What if 15 people died for some unrelated reason? Or there was violence without threats? Why are there only certain time when it becomes one’s responsibility to deal with contingencies? Aren’t these already factors of daily life anyway? Or do people stress because suddenly, something causes them to feel unprepared?

128

What a thoughtful refutation… Since you prefer to tell people you disagree with that they shouldn’t bother to speak, maybe you have more in common with “gamergate” than you realize. Hopefully your casual dismissals will allow you to enjoy your soapbox a few minutes longer.

129

@marilove has threatened your life? Doxxed you? I think you’ve missed what people are objecting to about Gamergate if you think that someone disagreeing with you is equivalent to GG’s actions.

5 Likes
130

No, my comparison is that they are similar motivations. The fundamental problem is the idea of preventing a person from communicating ideas that one finds disagreeable. People only ever learn through communication, not by telling people to shut up. The effect is the same, that of encouraging ignorance. The difference is merely an order of magnitude.

131

What a load of poop.

Pretending that the motivations are similar doesn’t make it so.

Threats of violence to silence somebody

is not similar in any way to

Any discourse or act intended to stop those threats.

Claiming things as fundamental, equating threats with speech to stop or prevent threats, pretending that all communication is equal, pretending that threats of violence are educational by implying that the cessation of threats is encouraging ignorance, misusing the term “order of magnitude”

Christ, what an asshole.

4 Likes
132

This thread continues to amaze! What’s with the constant torrent of personal remarks and lack of clarity?

So your great attempt at communication and understanding is to explain that I am “pretending” and call me names?

As it so happens, I do think that if there is anything fundamental to human relations, it is communication. Feel free to refute this if it bothers you. I could very well be wrong about this or anything else if you would care to demonstrate.

How did you deduce any of this from what I said? There is no “stopping” speech, threatening or otherwise. Words cannot be taken back, retrieved from discussion once they are uttered. Everything is debate. If people disagree with anything, they are free to say so. But preventing discourse is dysfunctional. There is no reason to credit anybody who can’t or won’t speak up for themselves. I never said I was “equating” anything - I am dealing with speech as a communications process - the value judgements are all yours.

Again, I never said any such thing. And even if I were to assert this to be the case, it would not be a case of pretending so much as a difference of opinion. Should I assume that you are mature enough to understand and handle differences of opinion without blowing your cool? Saying that somebody is wrong because they must be pretending doesn’t present a very persuasive argument about anything. Why did you make the assumptions you did? How could I better explain my thoughts? Asking such questions as these could help us to do the work to understand each other.

You somehow really misinterpreted my point there. No - I do not think that threats of violence are educational. Quite the opposite. But I do not choose sides. You telling somebody “talk nice or we’ll send the police” is also stifling somebody with threats of violence. The difference is that you believe that you are justified, and that they are not. Well, guess what? They probably feel the same way about their cause. My philosophy is to speak up, if anybody has a problem with Sarkeesian, journalists, feminists, or anybody else, they discredit themselves by shutting down discourse instead of articulating their concerns or criticisms effectively. The process of debate works regardless of who the different sides are, or what they believe. Trying to control discourse to favor your “obviously just side” - whatever that may be - never achieves any genuine understanding. You need to hear out people you don’t agree with, and maybe somebody will learn something.

mag·ni·tude/ˈmaɡnəˌt(y)o͞od/ noun

  1. the great size or extent of something.
  2. size.

Perhaps not the best way to put it, but not entirely inappropriate. How about “scale”? This is closer to what I was trying to quickly convey. To what lengths one will go to close discourse differs not in motivation, but only in scale.