Utah State University has just announced that Anita Sarkeesian has canceled a talk she was scheduled to give at the school tomorrow after receiving a threat of a “Montreal Massacre-style attack” by someone promising ““the deadliest school shooting in American history” if the cultural critic was allowed to speak.
Here’s the official announcement:
Anita Sarkeesian has canceled her scheduled speech for tomorrow following a discussion with Utah State University police regarding an email threat that was sent to Utah State University. During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.
Emphasis added. That’s right: the school received threats from someone promising to shoot people at a public event, but because of Utah’s gun laws, authorities would not be able to prohibit audience members from BRINGING GUNS to the talk.
Before learning that this was the case, Sarkeesian — after consulting with authorities — had planned to go ahead with the talk. As a spokesman for the school told the Standard Examiner, a northern Utah newspaper:
“They determined the threat seems to be consistent with ones (Sarkeesian) has received at other places around the nation. … The threat we received is not out of the norm for (this woman).”
The email threat came from someone who claimed that “feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge, for my sake and the sake of all the others they’ve wronged.”
The email, sent to several campus officials and posted online by the Standard Examiner, warned:
If you do not cancel [Sarkeesian’s] talk, a Montreal Massacre style attack will be carried out against the attendees, as well as students and staff at the nearby women’s center. I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs. This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.
The email writer claimed that even if authorities manage to stop him from an attack at the event,
There are plenty of feminists on campus who won;t be able to defend themselves. One way or another, I’m going to make sure they die. …
Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.
All this because she made some videos discussing sexism in fucking video games.
Here’s a screenshot of the full email, from the Standard Examiner site:
I’m speechless. What the fuck is wrong with these people?
NOTE: This is a NO TROLLS, NO MRAS, NO GAMERGATERS, NO VICTIM BLAMER thread. I will delete comments and ban people who do not respect the rules.
UPDATE: Sarkeesian has provied more details on Twitter; there were multiple threats, including one that specifically referred to GamerGate
Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn't take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah's open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
Multiple specific threats made stating intent to kill me & feminists at USU. For the record one threat did claim affiliation with #gamergate
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
At this point supporting #gamergate is implicitly supporting the harassment of women in the gaming industry.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
I’m safe. I will continue my work. I will continue speaking out. The whole game industry must stand up against the harassment of women.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) October 15, 2014
People disagreed with you and a moderator told you this wasn’t the place for the discussion you were pushing. That’s not vilification or insult.
Nova, precisely what strivingally and marinerachel said. There may be a time and place for this conversation, but this thread is not it.
If you think that’s being modded or vilified, then by all means, go.
“Open carry is an act of aggression, no matter what the gun owner’s intentions. It’s an implicit threat to every single person you encounter.”
That is a villification. That is an insult. We dogpile people for using terms like “crazy” inappropriately, because it unjustly maligns people with mental illness, but something like that is allowed to go unchallenged?
I got an email threat last week too. I’m afraid too. I’ve been afraid for a long time, along with millions of other women. I didn’t just have to cancel a public appearance. I had to cancel my life. Being told that I’m an “implicit threat” because of the only way I can even stand a chance of surviving? No, that isn’t ok.
Do we need to start another thread for this topic? I feel like Nova and the people disagreeing with her are having a decent discussion (in a very inappropriate thread) but if we have another community split over a dogpile I’mma need a week of brain bleach.
The presence of gun is pretty high up on the ladder of force to pretend that open carry is not an act of aggression when it clearly is just exactly that. Even when out of uniform it clearly states deadly force will be used if deemed necessary.
The thing is, Nova, when you carry it does imply a willingness to get aggressive, it’s just that in your case it’s mostly one person you’re considering aggression towards. Random people who see your gun have no way of knowing that, though.
And yeah, I know that defending yourself isn’t at all the same thing as attacking someone else, but again, how are people who don’t know you and just see the gun supposed to know that? And you personally probably don’t look very intimidating, so people probably won’t be too alarmed if they do see your gun, but that’s not the case for a lot of the other people walking around with guns.
Cassandra: Which is more important: my safety or other peoples opinions? Seriously.
What I’m objecting to is a broad steriotype of everybody who does a certain thing, regardless of why. This would not be tolerated if somebody were making a steriotype related to mental illness, gender, etc., but it’s not only being tolerated but defended and modded when a person who is being steriotyped objects to it. If it were somebody stating that schizophrenics or dog owners were a danger or a threat, there’d be hell of epic proportions unleashed and we both know that.
How many times must I say this is not the thread for this discussion?
The thing is, schizophrenia is not a weapon. Dogs are not weapons. Guns are a weapon, and in fact are a weapon of aggression. They are terrible at defence. I get that you are in danger, and that you feel having a gun on you makes you safer, and I’m very glad that you feel safer. But the vast majority of people who open carry are, in fact, making the people around them LESS safe.
The very fact that the university could *not* provide adequate security, in large part because of Utah’s gun laws, was why Sarkeesian cancelled her talk.
Sorry, Kittehs.
Your safety is important, but your personal decision to carry a gun doesn’t actually have anything to do with what happened with Sarkeesian’s talk at the university, which is why I resent your trying to use the natural sympathy that people here tend to feel towards victims of stalking as a Trojan Horse to advance the idea that concealed or open carry laws in general are OK.
Again, you’re making an irrelevant argument, and you’ve already been asked to stop, so why are you still pushing this derail?
*walks in*
*sees current tangent of thread*
*walks right out again* NOPE
Because this isn’t about guns per se but about stereotyping:
Having a mental illness, being female, or being in an ethnic minority, or having a disability are not personal choices.
Nova, you are way the eff out of line. You are raging at us? For what? Because you aren’t in the loop on the investigations so therefore no investigation is taking place? Because you would be a complete fool to carry a sidearm that you did not intend to use if necessary and we all know that? I have no idea why you are taking your rage out on this group of people but you absolutely need to stop it right now.
NovaL My statement is a definite difference from statements that anybody openly carrying a gun is an imminent threat and that carrying a gun is, in and of itself, an aggressive act. Nobody here can know that, now can they?
I’m going to disagree.
Anyone carrying a lethal weapon, is *by definition* a threat. The first thing I do when I see a cop is notice if they are left, or right, handed: so I know what to be looking for if they decide to clear leather. I spend a lot of time watching their body language (and if in pair/groups, the way that unit moves), because I can’t know what is going to get their attention and cause them to pull their weapons out.
If they do, I want to be out of the line of fire.
This is true of anyone.
That’s without going into the political/terroristic aspects of the “open carry” movement. I get a lot of those idiots talking to me about it (they seem to think my being a vet is going to make me specifically sympathetic… I’m not. I have a qualified agreement, which tends to go right out the door the moment they go off on a racists/eliminationist tangent. So far the ratio for that is 1:1).
Carrying a weapon for which there is no obvious need, in a manner which makes it clear to everyone that you are doing it… is an offensive act.
Nobody can broad brush the entire population who chooses to carry a firearm yet… there it is.
I am more than willing to grant all sorts of benefit of the doubt to people who have a permit to carry concealed. They are not making me aware (directly) of their desire to carry lethal hardware. I can (and generally will) accept the argument they feel some legitimate need to carry, but that’s not the case for people who carry openly.
And it’s certainly not the case in the present political climate.
A vast majority of those carrying a gun have no intention of hurting anybody, unless they’re in imminent danger.
Interesting thing: a couple of studies show that carrying a weapon (specifically a firearm) raises the estimation that other people are doing the same and lowers the threshold at which one considers pre-emptive recourse to violence (i.e. people were more willing to engage because they could be “defensive” by drawing their weapon, “just in case”.
I (as a person of experience) automatically assume some one with a visible firearm (esp. a handgun) is a threat. I consider what defensive tools I have ready to hand. I “paint” them in my head. I prepare for the possibilty they will decide to engage in random acts of violence.
Because the cost of not making such an assumption is too great.
Bullfuckingshit. You knew from the start you’d get this reaction, it was your first sentence when you initially brought this up. I’m very sympathetic to what you’re going through, but you’ve been repeatedly told to drop it. No needed to know what was in your back pocket.
Nice flounce, BTW.
CAN IT, NOVA.
You’re being bloody keen on pushing boundaries, aren’t you, persisting with this?
Yes, I just unapproved your latest comment.
Nova, you made your points. You’ve been asked to drop the subject not only by other commenters but by one of the mods. So drop the subject.
I work in a customer service industry, I have to be nice to everyone, but I will not, will not, wait on a customer carrying a gun. I feel it puts me in a dangerous position that I do not have to be in in the performance of my job.
And after posting I realized that I’m furthering a conversation no one wants to have atm. I apologize.
I’m annoyed at Nova continuing the argument but I’m also annoyed at everyone trying to get the last shots in (no pun intended) as the door slams on the conversation topic. Can we get back to discussing misogyny?
I think that’s a great idea. You first, strivingally.
Nah, but they could conceivably make things a lot worse. As I said, all it takes is a panicked gun owner to start firing wildly at the mass shooter and you could double the body count with “friendly fire”!
Sure thing!
Looks like the Totes Not Misogynist Gamers are overlapping with the Totes Not Misogynist Atheists today:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/522933269818404864