In all fairness, that article contains more than a few lies.
The USU police and the FBI conducted an investigation and found that the threats were not credible. They sounded like they were written by someone whose knowledge of firearms came from a newspaper. In addition, the FBI tracked it back to Brazil. Both of these groups concluded that there was not a danger to this speaker.
There is also a provision in Utah's law that allows the University to make it a gun free zone. They would have to set up metal detectors and otherwise make it secure. The University, presumably because the police and FBI told them there wasn't a real threat, declined to do so.
This speaker then decided to make a political point that had nothing to actually do with safety. She even called for people to boycott travel and business with the state because they had laws that she didn't like.
Steve, I will trust you on the laws, but will note that your dedication to defending gun people means that you completely ignore the misogyny in this story. Nothing warrants criticizing gun people in your mind, to the point that you end up bashing a woman who has been essentially stalked online by horrible people.
I guess I don't see what the gun community did wrong. They weren't the ones that were threatening this woman. That was a segment of the gaming community. Gun owners weren't saying anything. The University said they wouldn't violate the law and try and ban guns.
See, had you started there, I would have been only mildly annoyed. The post was really about this gamer misogyny and the overall attacks on women online. When I talk to women bloggers or twitter operators, they are routinely hassled and often with incredible hatred.
Your first response was to call her a liar. For you, the only victim in this story was the poor gun owners who were unfairly criticized. Perhaps you read elsewhere, but you don't know what she knows about the laws or about the threat. And given the horrible things that women have received when speaking out, I would not begrudge her if she simply didn't believe that the UTah cops took her seriously. That isn't exactly out of the norm here, whether we are talking about bullying or even rape threats. But you chose to immediately assume that she wasn't being truthful and only had an agenda.
And to be very fair, you aren't exactly reliable here. When even the NRA bows to open carry people, you find a way to excuse their behavior. Gun rights people are never really wrong in your world, or they are never representative of anything important.
You have the right to take that stance. But I no longer respect the gun rights community--and that was not always the case. Your knee jerk defense of anyone with an NRA card has been part of that, I am sorry to say.
I was calling ThinkProgress liars. I don't know if she is lying. I have not really followed gamergate. As far as I can tell, she did receive death threats, but the police and the FBI said they weren't credible and the University felt that they didn't need to take any special security measures.
This speaker then cancelled her talk and suggested that people boycott the entire state of Utah because of this law (which has been on the books for a decade).
I guess I still don't see how this involves gun owners. They didn't threaten her, nor did they threaten this event.
"This speaker then decided to make a political point that had nothing to actually do with safety. She even called for people to boycott travel and business with the state because they had laws that she didn't like."
Pretty sure you attacked her credibility. You don't know what she learned or how she learned it, as you just admitted. But you did jump her, because you defend gun rights first, even if that means disparaging a woman who is under attack by misogynist trolls. I guess I should take heart by the fact that you at least are trying to backtrack away from calling her a liar, though you still sneak in a shot at her about her political opposition to Utah's gun laws. Her free speech is ho hum. But disparage gun rights people?
I do think that her response was uncalled for and disrespectful. I have no idea why she felt that a threat from some Brazilian was credible. I don't think that is a reasonable position. Public figures receive all sorts of threat. Heck, non-public figures do, too. I have received them.
Her reaction was then to expect the University to protect her from a non-credible threat. They declined. Her next demand was that they violate the laws of that state and protect her from what? Some Brazilian that has a Utah CPL?
As a result of not getting these demands met, she calls for people to boycott the state and hurt them financially because she is not getting her demands met.
By your own admission, you don't know what she knew or experienced. Why are you doubling down on blaming a person who has been attacked and bullied? All because she doesn't like gun rights people?
You don't get it. And when it comes to guns you never will. Stop bashing this woman, and I might respect you a bit. But your insistence on doubling down on something you know nothing about is amazing. Yes, you know the laws there. But you have no idea what her experience is, but you don't even consider giving her some benefit of the doubt.
Nope, in Steve's world, the only people who get the benefit are gun rights people. They get excused even when they are misanthropes like the NRA. But a bullied feminist is wrong.
Had this story been about anything other than gun rights--had it just been about Gamergate, you might have had sympathy for her. Because outside guns, you have pretty reasonable politics. But once she badmouthed guns, she became a bad person regardless of her circumstances.
If she were a gun rights defender, she would have been excused. Hell, you excuse people like Ted Nugent, for Christ's sake. But not a feminist who criticizes guns. That is the unforgivable sin. Now, if she wanted to have a gun, she would then be a good person.
I do feel bad for her, but her position is unreasonable. If the police or the FBI had come back and said the threat was credible, I would support her. The world doesn't revolve around someone's feelings and you can't expect society to cater to you.
That really isn't my point. My point is that your world is completely different when you discuss gun issues. As I said, you don't know what her issues are. You don't know her faith in the police. Perhaps she has worked with them on other harassment and bullying issues only to be treated badly. You never gave her the benefit of the doubt, but you always, and I stress "always" give gun rights people the benefit of the doubt. Without exception. You explain away Ted freaking Nugent. You explain away the NRA flogging lies about our President to stoke up the rage among gun owners.
Those aren't reasonable either, but your loyalties mean that they are still excusable. And for some reason, you can't even see that.
14 comments:
Have you been following this whole #gamergate thing that is leading to the threats to Sarkeesian?
I have not. I am only aware that there is this real weird gamer thing about strong women. Oh, and generally strong hatred of strong women online.
But so glad that gun rights people are there to make this worse.
In all fairness, that article contains more than a few lies.
The USU police and the FBI conducted an investigation and found that the threats were not credible. They sounded like they were written by someone whose knowledge of firearms came from a newspaper. In addition, the FBI tracked it back to Brazil. Both of these groups concluded that there was not a danger to this speaker.
There is also a provision in Utah's law that allows the University to make it a gun free zone. They would have to set up metal detectors and otherwise make it secure. The University, presumably because the police and FBI told them there wasn't a real threat, declined to do so.
This speaker then decided to make a political point that had nothing to actually do with safety. She even called for people to boycott travel and business with the state because they had laws that she didn't like.
Steve, I will trust you on the laws, but will note that your dedication to defending gun people means that you completely ignore the misogyny in this story. Nothing warrants criticizing gun people in your mind, to the point that you end up bashing a woman who has been essentially stalked online by horrible people.
I guess I don't see what the gun community did wrong. They weren't the ones that were threatening this woman. That was a segment of the gaming community. Gun owners weren't saying anything. The University said they wouldn't violate the law and try and ban guns.
See, had you started there, I would have been only mildly annoyed. The post was really about this gamer misogyny and the overall attacks on women online. When I talk to women bloggers or twitter operators, they are routinely hassled and often with incredible hatred.
Your first response was to call her a liar. For you, the only victim in this story was the poor gun owners who were unfairly criticized. Perhaps you read elsewhere, but you don't know what she knows about the laws or about the threat. And given the horrible things that women have received when speaking out, I would not begrudge her if she simply didn't believe that the UTah cops took her seriously. That isn't exactly out of the norm here, whether we are talking about bullying or even rape threats. But you chose to immediately assume that she wasn't being truthful and only had an agenda.
And to be very fair, you aren't exactly reliable here. When even the NRA bows to open carry people, you find a way to excuse their behavior. Gun rights people are never really wrong in your world, or they are never representative of anything important.
You have the right to take that stance. But I no longer respect the gun rights community--and that was not always the case. Your knee jerk defense of anyone with an NRA card has been part of that, I am sorry to say.
I was calling ThinkProgress liars. I don't know if she is lying. I have not really followed gamergate. As far as I can tell, she did receive death threats, but the police and the FBI said they weren't credible and the University felt that they didn't need to take any special security measures.
This speaker then cancelled her talk and suggested that people boycott the entire state of Utah because of this law (which has been on the books for a decade).
I guess I still don't see how this involves gun owners. They didn't threaten her, nor did they threaten this event.
"This speaker then decided to make a political point that had nothing to actually do with safety. She even called for people to boycott travel and business with the state because they had laws that she didn't like."
Pretty sure you attacked her credibility. You don't know what she learned or how she learned it, as you just admitted. But you did jump her, because you defend gun rights first, even if that means disparaging a woman who is under attack by misogynist trolls. I guess I should take heart by the fact that you at least are trying to backtrack away from calling her a liar, though you still sneak in a shot at her about her political opposition to Utah's gun laws. Her free speech is ho hum. But disparage gun rights people?
I do think that her response was uncalled for and disrespectful. I have no idea why she felt that a threat from some Brazilian was credible. I don't think that is a reasonable position. Public figures receive all sorts of threat. Heck, non-public figures do, too. I have received them.
Her reaction was then to expect the University to protect her from a non-credible threat. They declined. Her next demand was that they violate the laws of that state and protect her from what? Some Brazilian that has a Utah CPL?
As a result of not getting these demands met, she calls for people to boycott the state and hurt them financially because she is not getting her demands met.
By your own admission, you don't know what she knew or experienced. Why are you doubling down on blaming a person who has been attacked and bullied? All because she doesn't like gun rights people?
You don't get it. And when it comes to guns you never will. Stop bashing this woman, and I might respect you a bit. But your insistence on doubling down on something you know nothing about is amazing. Yes, you know the laws there. But you have no idea what her experience is, but you don't even consider giving her some benefit of the doubt.
Nope, in Steve's world, the only people who get the benefit are gun rights people. They get excused even when they are misanthropes like the NRA. But a bullied feminist is wrong.
Lame.
Had this story been about anything other than gun rights--had it just been about Gamergate, you might have had sympathy for her. Because outside guns, you have pretty reasonable politics. But once she badmouthed guns, she became a bad person regardless of her circumstances.
If she were a gun rights defender, she would have been excused. Hell, you excuse people like Ted Nugent, for Christ's sake. But not a feminist who criticizes guns. That is the unforgivable sin. Now, if she wanted to have a gun, she would then be a good person.
That is really pathetic.
I do feel bad for her, but her position is unreasonable. If the police or the FBI had come back and said the threat was credible, I would support her. The world doesn't revolve around someone's feelings and you can't expect society to cater to you.
That really isn't my point. My point is that your world is completely different when you discuss gun issues. As I said, you don't know what her issues are. You don't know her faith in the police. Perhaps she has worked with them on other harassment and bullying issues only to be treated badly. You never gave her the benefit of the doubt, but you always, and I stress "always" give gun rights people the benefit of the doubt. Without exception. You explain away Ted freaking Nugent. You explain away the NRA flogging lies about our President to stoke up the rage among gun owners.
Those aren't reasonable either, but your loyalties mean that they are still excusable. And for some reason, you can't even see that.
Post a Comment