Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 348 posts

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#241

Post by hga »

RubyPinch wrote: post #238
Fear-The-N8V wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty. People aren't evil by default. Give them more credit. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/125342-armed-man-gathers-peo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqkqzsIjujI http://bearingarms.com/concealed-carry-permit-holder-stops-s...

@ the last link: I don't think that would fit into the case of "preventing a crime", the guy shot 3 people then started leaving, before he got shot

That makes the proposition largely unfalsifiable. That is---and this is a very minimal report---we can't know if someone who momentarily stopped shooting would continue.

However, continuing to extrapolate from this report, neither police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner) nor civilians are allowed to use lethal force on someone who's ceased threatening and is simply fleeing. If a case cannot be made that the threat was still there, guy who shot him should have been charged.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#242

Post by flycaliguy »

hotgoldminer wrote: post #195
comrh wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to be hard pressed to get a real citation for the safety thing. The issue is just so complex you can't have a 1 to 1 relationship between concealed carry and crime rates. Some states release CCP numbers though and they're plenty of people doing it.

Any documented instance of concealed carry preventing a crime? Strictly using my imagination, I see far more opportunity for escalation of and accidental violence than for prevention.

What would anecdotal examples reveal? Seems more likely to confuse the question.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#243

Post by bitJericho »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #240
bitJericho wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, none of these were actually two conceal carry shooters accidentally shooting eachother because one thought the other was the criminal. How would you like me to refute that? Shall I find an article titled "Two heros accidentally didn't shoot themselves thinking the other was the criminal." Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise.

> Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise. That's what I want you to refuse, why my premise is "ridiculous." My examples clearly indicate that concealed carriers are prone to these kind of mistakes. I mean for crying out loud a concealed carrier shot the VICTIM in a robbery!

The OP said "Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will)."

That's fear mongering. It's an event that hasn't occurred, but is meant to drive fear into the witless.

All you've proven is that innocent people get caught in the crossfire on occasions. Who's to say the teller wouldn't have been shot anyway? And quite frankly, the only person responsible for that death is the armed robber. Very likely he would be charged with murder even though he didn't shoot the victim. The victim would be alive today if an armed robbery had not taken place. Here's some fear mongering for you, that shooter could himself have been shot if the robber didn't want any witnesses left behind. You don't think that happens?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/witness-robber-shot-cle...

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#244

Post by CocaKoala »

kelvin0 wrote: post #235
CocaKoala wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're not stating facts which are relevant. You're saying "If she did [x] it would be [y]". That might be objectively true, but you're not presenting any evidence that she's doing [x] and so it doesn't matter . It's an incredibly obnoxious thing to do, and honestly in this context it's pretty disgusting.

I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts. Please do not be disgusted by so little.

>I was not trying to state any of the scenarios I presented as facts.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have gotten confused when you said "Notice I did not accuse her of anything, simply stating two facts."; I took that to mean that you were simply stating two facts, and in fact you were trying to say literally the exact opposite of what you said. You should maybe work on saying things which are not one hundred percent false.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#245

Post by AnimalMuppet »

hashberry wrote: post #142
bvanslyke wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case you (the reader of this comment) are interested in what kind of person it is that races to articles to post this tidbit, try taking a dive through his comment history. > hashberry 235 days ago | link | parent | on: My children’s book on technology raised 100k withi... > The presentation and video was amazing. I immediately fell in love with her. She smiles non-stop. She jumps around with giddy excitement in a…

Shaming male hetrosexuality is Feminism 101. Yes, I am attracted to young, maternal, intelligent women who like to smile.

There's nothing wrong with what you're attracted to.

What's wrong is that you seem to think that commenting on your attraction to the female in the video is a worthwhile comment on the video. The video might have actual content, you know? It might be less sexist of you to actually pay some attention to the content, rather than to your attraction to the presenter?

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#246

Post by CocaKoala »

kelvin0 wrote: post #233
CocaKoala wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your statement objectively. You said that if she had manufactured this crisis, it would be a machiavellian stunt. Can you present even a single shred of evidence that she's manufacturing the crisis? Because until you present that evidence, you're not actually presenting facts that are relevant to the discussion. You might as well say "If she were an alien, this might be part of her plan to take over the world"…

I do not know of any evidence, nor do I wish to investigate if there is any with regards to the 'manufactured' hypothesis. Reading the article, I had a flash of an interesting twist of events (as improbable as it is). This whole debate is not even about her, but how some people could use this scenario to manipulate the public's attention and polarize the discussion. I like considering things from different angles, wh…

Considering things from different angles is a useful thing to do, and may well be what Hacker News is about. Considering things from useless angles that have no bearing on the discussion doesn't contribute to anything and only serves to confuse the issue at hand. What is the benefit of discussing an arbitrary hypothetical that's so radical and unsupportable that even the individual who proposes it immediately backs off of the position instead of putting an ounce of effort into providing evidence?

Maybe the whole thing is manufactured by Putin. Maybe the entire chain of events is related to the Kennedy assassination. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian is actually the Lindburgh Baby. Maybe Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend is the son of the gunsmith who made the Magic Bullet. There are millions of hypotheticals out there, and no benefit to discussing all of them.

You're a literal conspiracy theorist; do you understand that you're equivalent to somebody posting that picture of the UFO and saying, "I believe!"?

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#247

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

bitJericho wrote: post #243
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because that's what I would need to find in order to "refute" your rediculous premise. That's what I want you to refuse, why my premise is "ridiculous." My examples clearly indicate that concealed carriers are prone to these kind of mistakes. I mean for crying out loud a concealed carrier shot the VICTIM in a robbery!

The OP said "Mark my words, one day a mass shooting will occur, someone will pull out their concealed carry, and a second concealed carry person will come around the corner and shoot the first (or the police will)." That's fear mongering. It's an event that hasn't occurred, but is meant to drive fear into the witless. All you've proven is that innocent people get caught in the crossfire on occasions. Who's to say the…

> And quite frankly, the only person responsible for that death is the armed robber.

You don't think the person that actually shot the teller is the least bit responsible? Most armed robberies result in no deaths. This one resulted in one, and likely resulted in that one BECAUSE some idiot with a hero complex started shooting.

It is very likely had that person not been there the robbers would have got away with the money but everyone would be alive to talk about it.

Concealed carriers are dangerous. They're almost as dangerous as the "bad things" they seek to stop. More guns are more guns. Once a shot is ringing through the air it doesn't care who the good guys or bad guys are, so I'd prefer to be in a situation with less shots in the air regardless of motivations.

Concealed carriers are well intentioned fools. They turn a dangerous situation even more dangerous. Like throwing a match into a gas leak.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#248

Post by flycaliguy »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #136
Crito wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't imagine attending an event where people could carry concealed weapon Have you ever been to America? If so, you have almost certainly already attended countless events where somebody in the audience had a gun. The staggering majority of the time there are no incidents, so it is easy to overlook this.

"Gun Owner Openly Carries Gun To Little League Game Without Incident" doesn't make for nearly as sensational a headline as "Thirty-Seven Massacred At Redbox Dropoff" and newspapers exist to tell us about sensational events. I won't deny that there are responsible gun owners, but they're not a problem. The problem is that any nutjob can carry a gun and by the time he or she has demonstrated working knowledge of a safe…

Can you elaborate on who you consider "nutjobs"?

As far as I can tell, the biggest factor at play in these shootings is an inability on the part of the American public to understand mental health.

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#249

Post by xtrumanx »

EvilTrout wrote: post #202
hnha wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice cherry you picked there. If you would leave a meaningful comment, I would be happy to talk. I stand by my words. Her videos are full of lies. They are on a Columbine or Jack Thomson level of "objectivity". Someone please prove me wrong about Hitman otherwise.

I watched her video that featured Hitman Absolution as well and I don't recall her saying "this is integral" to the game. It was one of many examples. Also, to me that sounds like cherry picking -- out of literally dozens of games you are focusing on one example. And that specific example is from a game that caused outrage before it was even released for their "sexy latex nun" trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

I don't know much about her videos but her description of Hitman left with a bad impression of her work.

It's objectively wrong. Wouldn't it be great if she just corrected it so as to not give her detractors more things to work with?

Re: Feminist video-games talk pulled after massacre threat

#250

Post by ben0x539 »

iamdave wrote: post #239
ben0x539 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with the particular phrase 'battle of the sexes' is that invites a reduction in this context that gamergate holds a reasonable male position and Sarkeesian merely holds an equally reasonable female position, and that men can't be blamed for holding the gamergate position and that only women should reasonably hold Sarkeesian's position. I admit I'm ignorant of the game theory allusion you're making. More ge…

let's ask the peope receiving death threats to sit down with their abusers and find a compromise" truth-is-in-the-middle thing. Except I never said that. I never insinuated that, if you think that's the case, then it appears you're trying to force your interpretations into my statements, and that's not cool. Instead, what I've asserted repeatedly is this: 1) Sexism in gaming, tech and other industries needs to be add…

I still think 2) is one hell of a false equivalency, ymmv.
Post reply on HN