Can someone accurately explain GameGate in a sentence?

[Sidelle]

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

http://paidpost.nytimes.com/netflix/...0#.VFRahXsVSF8


THIS SHIT SHOULD BE YOUR PROBLEM

Having trouble trying to read this article on my Kindle right now for some reason, so I'm wondering does it say who's behind this? If it's a feminist thing, I'm gonna laugh.

[Raev]

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

I mean, look at Adam Lanza. Look at Elliot Rodger. Guns are available and psychopathy is a very real thing. The way in which the Utah State threats were handled was absolutely irresponsible, and the police hardly "handled" it at all, which is why she had to cancel the lecture.

I am sure I could look up a few statistics about how everyone is a million times more likely to be stung to death by a horde of Japanese hornets than killed by a rogue shooter. But even if you believe that these people are a credible threat to public safety, why is your primary concern censoring video games and gamer thoughtcrime and not privatizing the police force?

[Raev]

I read a short article on the Utah State thing.

Anita's position is the typical upside down nonsense that typifies so many progressives today: she feels oppressed because (rather amazingly in today's day and age) the government wasn't willing to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.

If she really cared about the issue, she could have either gone ahead with the talk or moved to a private venue and hired a security guard or two to pat people down, but as someone else pointed out earlier, she is just trying to be as oppressed as possible, because somehow that is a badge of honor in today's society.

[loramin]

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

Anita's position is the typical upside down nonsense that typifies so many progressives today: she feels oppressed because (rather amazingly in today's day and age) the government wasn't willing to violate the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Wait wait wait. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "ban all guns" people (even thought it does bug the hell out of me that everyone ignores the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment), and I don't want this to turn in to some debate about banning guns because that's stupid. I've had fun going to the shooting range, and I've eaten a whole lot of delicious dead animals that my in-laws hunted, so I'm not at all "anti-gun".

But look, every constitutional right has limits: I'm a staunch defender of the 1st amendment, but even I want to see some asshole who yells "fire" in a crowded theater go to jail. Same deal here: are your rights also violated because the government won't let you bring guns in your carry on luggage?

The whole way rights work is based on this idea of a sphere of autonomy. Each of us has a little bubble around us that's our rights, and no one can fuck with that bubble normally. But when your bubble and my bubble collide, those rights have to adjust. For instance, I have every right to swing my arm around as much as I want ... until I stand next to you and swinging my arm would actually mean punching you: at that point I've lost my right to swing my arms around.

But if I'm wrong, by all means show me the Supreme Court ruling where they say that banning guns in a particular event for safety reasons is a constitutional violation.

[Rararboker]

Lol constitutional ruling.

This thread has entertained. Much entertainment.

[paulgiamatti]

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

But even if you believe that these people are a credible threat to public safety, why is your primary concern censoring video games and gamer thoughtcrime and not privatizing the police force?

What do these people have to do to convince you that they're a threat to public safety? Going on a killing spree and murdering dozens of women and children isn't enough? For the third time, my primary concern is simply the way we understand video games. I'm not advocating censorship.

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

If she really cared about the issue, she could have either gone ahead with the talk or moved to a private venue and hired a security guard or two to pat people down, but as someone else pointed out earlier, she is just trying to be as oppressed as possible, because somehow that is a badge of honor in today's society.

Oh right, my bad. It's her fault some lunatic threatened to murder her and everyone attending the lecture at Utah State. It's her fault feminists "ruined" this guy's life, pushing him to these measures.

Enforcing a no firearms policy on a college campus for one event after a very serious threat is not a violation of rights. It's common sense.

[Glenzig]

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

Wait wait wait. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "ban all guns" people (even thought it does bug the hell out of me that everyone ignores the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment), and I don't want this to turn in to some debate about banning guns because that's stupid. I've had fun going to the shooting range, and I've eaten a whole lot of delicious dead animals that my in-laws hunted, so I'm not at all "anti-gun".

But look, every constitutional right has limits: I'm a staunch defender of the 1st amendment, but even I want to see some asshole who yells "fire" in a crowded theater go to jail. Same deal here: are your rights also violated because the government won't let you bring guns in your carry on luggage?

The whole way rights work is based on this idea of a sphere of autonomy. Each of us has a little bubble around us that's our rights, and no one can fuck with that bubble normally. But when your bubble and my bubble collide, those rights have to adjust. For instance, I have every right to swing my arm around as much as I want ... until I stand next to you and swinging my arm would actually mean punching you: at that point I've lost my right to swing my arms around.

But if I'm wrong, by all means show me the Supreme Court ruling where they say that banning guns in a particular event for safety reasons is a constitutional violation.

However, USU police consulted with the FBI’s cyberterrorism task force and behavioral analysis unit and determined that the threats against Sarkeesian would not prevent a safe lecture, even with firearms allowed.

"Given that she had received many of the same sorts of threats and none of the threats had materialized into anything specific, that was part of the context of the investigation," Vitale said. "That led us to believe that the threat was not imminent or real."

USU officials also pointed to a 2004 state law preventing public universities from restricting guns.

Sarkeesian said she asked for metal detectors or pat-downs at the entrance of the Taggart Student Center auditorium, but USU police said they could not prevent those in attendance from carrying weapons into the lecture if they had concealed weapons permits. Though she said, "in hindsight, I don’t think I’d feel comfortable with any weapons in the auditorium." Police instead promised more officers and a backpack check at the doors. Sarkeesian said she asked whether police could screen the audience for guns and let them in if they had permits, but Vitale said campus law enforcement officers believed that would have been needlessly invasive for the audience.

"If we felt it was necessary to do that to protect Miss Sarkeesian, we absolutely would have done that," Vitale said. "We felt the level of security presence we were putting into this was completely adequate to provide a safe environment."

But, Vitale said, that determination doesn’t replace Sarkeesian’s own judgment, noting that "she’s the one who is standing in front of the audience; she’s the one who has been receiving death threats."

Sarkeesian said the threats were specific, with one claiming, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs."

"It’s unacceptable that the school is unable or unwilling to screen for firearms at a lecture on their campus, especially when a specific terrorist threat had been made against the speaker," she said.

USU always has allowed guns at campus events, including speeches by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in 2008 and actor and activist Danny Glover, whose commencement address in 2010 was targeted by hate mail but nothing rising to the level of a death threat, Vitale said.

So a famous actor and a supreme court judge can still give their speeches with guns allowed, but I guess they aren't special little snowflakes like a raging feminist is.

[maerilith]

Boring.

[loramin]

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

However, USU police consulted with the FBI’s cyberterrorism task force and behavioral analysis unit and determined that the threats against Sarkeesian would not prevent a safe lecture, even with firearms allowed.

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.

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.

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.

[maerilith]

also,

Drama.