Very special snowflakes: Pence's scheduled speech makes Notre Dame students "feel unsafe"

Note that the source he quoted specifies that she gets these threats often, as opposed to never. Note that it says absolutely nothing about the threat not being serious; it says local police and FBI are taking it seriously and are confident there will be no danger after the measures they've taken.

So at least one of my questions is answered: we know who is interested in spreading this lie.

Which is to say there was no actual threat and you're just salty that you forgot that.

The lie is that there was ever any real threat, along with all the other claims of harassment. It's been shown that the majority of the "harassment" she's gotten has been actual legit criticism of her videos, pointing out her dishonesty in them, and also how she's straight up stolen artwork and "Let's Play" footage.

And actually, if you read the source, it says nothing about taking any measures beyond investigating and finding that there was nothing to it. The literally say that there was never a threat to students in that statement. So are the police lying?

Nope, blow by blow each of those statements is false according to the source you provided.

Why is it so important to you to pretend Sarkeesian wasn't threatened? What happens to your worldview if she was? Some people I vehemently disagree with receive death threats, and I have no problem disagreeing with those who threaten them in equal measure. Why can't you do the same?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.06e83ec87cce

Ahh, Portland, the land where snowflakes riot and loot when their side loses an election. Now we have self declared "anti-fascists" making terrorist threats and threatening violence unless their demands are met. What are their demands?

The 67th annual Portland Rose Parade is being held soon and just like it has done for the previous 66 years the Portland Republican Party has sponsored a float and will be taking part in the parade. The self declared "anti-fascists" say event organizers must expel the local Republican sponsored float or they will resort to violence and disrupt the parade.

There is your liberal tolerance folks. We need more folks like Bernie and fewer folks like these radical thugs.

Now we have wackos on the right making similar threats. In Kentucky some nutjob showed up to UK with an axe and started threatening people.

This is what happens when political violence gets used. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is a downward spiral for everyone.

The article I read clearly states the school received a threat of a Montreal style massacre shooting that specifically mentioned Sarkeezian.

Liar.

I'm not pretending. The police say it themselves. Why is it so important to you that she was?

I have no problem disagreeing with someone sending her death threats. But that isn't why the talk was cancelled. And this is contrasted by actual violence at Berkley which was initiated by members of the regressive left, which has been cheered on by even more members of the regressive left.

Jesus Christ.

Ok, I have no hope that I'll get through to @Captain X, but since some others -- hi @Federal Farmer -- seem to believe him blindly instead of actually reading his source, I'll go through the motions:

Here's @Captain X's original claim:

Here's what his source says:

Here's @Captain X expanding on his claim, my emphasis:

Here's what his source says, my emphasis:

Here's @Captain X weaselling out of his original false claim and making a new false claim instead:

Here's what his source says:

Here's @Captain X returning to his original false claim:

The information on this subject in his source remains unchanged, of course:

And yet the upshot is that no one has been able to show a legit threat against her. As in, it's just as likely that the "threat" was made by one of her supporters. Others, like Brianna Wu, have actually been caught trying to stir stuff up like this on her own, in one instance because she forgot to sign out of her main account.

So again, why is it so important to you that she was threatened by someone, especially in light of the police investigation finding no credible threat?

False.

Absurd speculation, and the opposite of the claims made in the source you chose.

False.

I figure just about every celeb gets death threats and stalkers especially young women celebs. It is a well know problem. The fact is there were no creditable threats made against her yet she gleefully tried to dodge criticism and pretend to be a victim smearing and slandering everyone who pointed out the problems with her B.S. claims about gamergate. Sarkesian is just another professional wannabe victim trying to cash in and she had more in common with a run of the mill comman then with any real researcher.

#stoptryingtomakeregressivelefthappen

I don't have to try to make anything happen. I just have to point out what these authoritarians actually do. I am sorry the truth upsets you but it is still the truth and it is still happening.

Another thread disintegrates into a slap fight over Anita Sarkeesian?

Look, I've given up trying to make people see through her.
Her scam victims deserve her.
Let 'em lose their money.
They were lucky to have it in the first place.
And let the White Knights be oblivious that they're being benevolent sexists playing into the exact "damsel in distress", narrative they claim to hate so much.

They all deserve each other.
While the left was wallowing in this shit, they let Trump get elected.
The KGB agents on Reddit and Twitter earned their extra vodka rations.

You can claim it's false all you want, but there is no evidence of any legit threat to her. The last one in particular is laughable given the statement by the police where they literally said they determined there was no threat there, which is why they didn't shut down the event.

The regressive left has already made it happen. Actions speak louder than words.

We'll have to "agree to disagree" over Cindy Sheehan. Nobody drafted her son, and I guarantee everyone who joins the military is well aware that your job entails training for and (inevitably) engaging in violent activity. It's like taking up boxing then outraged when you get punched in the face.

And as a military member you cannot pick-and-choose what wars are unjust and what wars are not. Take my son for example: if he gets recalled from "ready reserve" to fight in the sandbox he'll be devastated and extremely reluctant to go. If he has to fight in Korea he'll be the first guy in line to join back up. He thinks the sandbox is eternal FAIL and pointless. The whole region is a misery pit anyway. But he hates the NK regime and knows when the dust clears their culture will prevail and eventually all Koreans will get their shit together and be okay - peace and freedom and prosperity will return.

Nobody wants to see a family member die. If Cindy's son would have died from a car wreck instead (on a road that had needed stop lights but only rich neighborhoods had the stop lights) would she protest the unjust highway system?

As a citizen of a democracy, that is exactly what you need to do. If you disagree, you go into politics and try to convince others. Which is what Cindy Sheehan did.

Having said that, there is also a point at which every soldier is called upon to make that call and consider disobedience. Otherwise you get the 'just following orders' banality of evil that gives us totalitarian regimes in the first place. In order not to get to that point, you take seriously the political duties of citizens in a democracy, for which see above.

FBI, police and campus police disagree. Perhaps they are all wrong. If you have any evidence for that to be the case, show it; so far you have posted a source that says the opposite of what you claim, and demonstrated you can't read it, also known as the Full Dinner.

I literally quoted their statement where they say exactly what I said they did. So apparently you can't read.

Maybe we need a poll: Does the article @Captain X posted say what he thinks it says or what @K. says?

Nope. The article says several times that threats were made, clearly and explicitly, and I quoted those passages above. The part you quoted says that because the police took the threat seriously and implemented countermeasures, there remained "no threat to" students.

In English, a language you seem to be unlearning quickly for purposes of political convenience, "a threat to" denotes the concept of danger. It is "a threat against" that denotes an utterance that promises danger to the addressee. Hence one might say, for instance, 'Although many threats were made against the invited speaker, due to our security measures we don't believe that there is a threat to the invited speaker.'

On the issue of whether threats were made against Sarkeesian and whether they were to be taken seriously, your source could not be more clear:

CaptainX misspoke (though I'm not sure he realizes it yet), and K is holding his feet to the fire over it.

What's at issue here - not for the first time with Captain X - is that he's incapable of admitting he misspoke. It makes for an interesting conversation.

He didn't just misspeak, though. The error concerns three separate claims (no-one made a threat against Sarkeesian in this instance, no-one ever made such a threat, and the police didn't take the threat seriously), one of which he keeps repeating, and his whole point collapses without these false claims. What would remain of his point after correction is that in some but not all security experts' minds, the people threatening Sarkeesian in one specific instance were less competent than the instigators at Berkeley claim to be.

I agree, and I don't think either have been silenced.