Can someone accurately explain GameGate in a sentence?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Cool. I'm not saying the school did anything wrong at all: like you said, all the professionals felt a gun ban was unnecessary. Plus, Utah already has their law and it won't change because of her.

This is correct.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I also don't think Anita did anything wrong: she has every right to chose when, where and if she speaks. If I got death threats for weeks, and then specific ones for that event, I might be concerned about speaking there too. When you're worried about a crazy psycho trying to kill you, the idea of an audience full of gun-bearers can be a little intimidating.

She's a professional victim, that was the perfect venue for her to exacerbate the threat into a fucking hurricane... which she later did on national media.
If you look closer into the event though, you'll see that it was going to be an open forum with an unfiltered Q&A session, Anita has a history of only doing closed speeches and pre-approved questions. This is the real reason she canceled.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All I was saying was, had the school decided to ban guns at the event because they wanted to placate their speaker, it wouldn't have been a constitutional violation.

Would it be a constitutional violation? Of course not, it's private property, they can set/change the rules whenever the hell they want.

Would it be stupid? Absolutely. Gun free zones don't work, this has been quantifiably proven over the past twenty years. Mass shootings only happen in gun free zones, the most violent cities in the country have strict gun free policies.

If anything, disarming the bystanders only invites someone to come in and do damage. If you were planning an attack and you found out the speaker just disarmed all of your targets... do math.

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. Before anyone says "well she wasn't really worried about a crazy psycho", imagine this: you figure out a way to piss off everyone here worse than Platlord, Lron, and TMO combined. RnF already had doxing and threats before, but now every member of that community is angrier than they've ever been, and it's at you.

Even though most are completely harmless, wouldn't you worry that perhaps one of them might take things a bit farther than the rest, that perhaps one person here is capable of raping or killing? Now imagine a community several orders of magnitude bigger, and ask the same questions.

Even if you still say "no, I'd be cool", I think it's hard to fault someone for feeling differently when it really happens to them.

Been there already. Guess what. In the history of the world there have been 0 cases of a publicly released threat actually going through. The increased police presence at the college was literally for peace of mind and nothing more.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No. If a psycho wanted me dead that badly I'm sure they would be able to do it during my day to day activities while I'm not on high alert. That would be much easier than killing me in public with security surrounding me.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In the history of the world there have been 0 cases of a publicly released threat actually going through. The increased police presence at the college was literally for peace of mind and nothing more.

You're both thinking way too rationally about this. Sure a perfectly logical psycho would assassinate their victim like Dexter or Solid Snake, but I don't think "rational" and "psychotic killer" really go together. That dude in Arizona went up to a congress woman, with security guards, in broad daylight, and shot her. Bat shit crazy people do that sort of thing.

Similarly, when someone fears for their life, they don't think "am I more likely to be killed by lightning or a psycho killer?" (By the way, that's a dumb comparison people keep making because the rate of people who die after getting death threats is very different from the rate of people in the general population). Most people, when they get a death threat, think "OMFG someone is trying to kill me BECAUSE THEY SENT ME A LETTER SAYING THEY WERE GOING TO KILL ME!"

Now I don't care how much you disagree with her point of view, her PR strategy, or her career as a "professional victim" (whatever that even means). I personally don't have strong feelings about her one way or the other. What I do have strong feelings about is that no one should have to put up with death threats because someone disagrees with their point of view, whether that person is Salmon Rushdie, President Obama, or Anita. And anyone who does get those threats definitely shouldn't have to go anywhere that they've been specifically targeted with a death threat if they don't want to.

Originally Posted by KagatobLuvsAnimu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is correct.
Would it be a constitutional violation? Of course not, it's private property, they can set/change the rules whenever the hell they want.

I wasn't arguing with you on that point; someone earlier in the thread (to lazy to see who) was making that claim.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're both thinking way too rationally about this.

That has been a problem for me for most of my life. I was hoping no one would notice.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"professional victim" (whatever that even means).

This made me lol until I realized that many in this thread probably don't know that Anita, Zoe, Brianna and many others are payed thousands of dollars a month via patreon simply to exist, that they promote themselves (in Anita's case extremely ironically) as damsels in distress that need help to keep 'fighting the good fight'.