RE: The Sarkeesian Conspiracy

Ah, the joys of youtube.

Well here's my comment that was probably marked as spam, and didn't appear yet. So here's a copy.

This all comes due to this.


***
-Reporting in August does not increase the chances of someone else harassing Sarkeesian at a later (August) or even future date.

As to your list:
1) In August, she clearly stated on her twitter she contacted the local police departments, not the federal authorities (FBI). You even made mention of this but dismissed it because of your crack-deductive skills.
2) But she didn't.
3) Speculation.
4) That doesn't happen in regards to digital, police records, databases and backups. The SFPD even has an up to date map of reports based on time and location.
5) Clerical error? Nope. Search terms can be looked for by date and other variables, unless you assume every single piece of data in the report was incorrect (name, date, place, type of crime, etc.)
6) The officer (and Aurini) was very clear on what date ranges he was looking under.
7)    a) That's not procedure. All calls get recorded and reports are filed. Emergency records everything.
    b) Anita clearly stated she contacted police.
8) Then the officer would've said so.
9) Then the officer would've said so (and would've received a response from the software they were using.)
10) Exactly the same as 6.

Police & police departments = SFPD. Not the FBI. The FBI are not the police.

There is no missing record. It simply did not exist.

"I can't imagine a more insignificant anomaly then a single missing letter."
And yet that anomaly can explain someone's origin. Where they learned to spell. What country they're from. For example, Britain, and Canada, spell colour with a u. Yet, this one was spelled without one.

As to your idea that an email's header IP was "spoofed" to show that it came from Britain "is more plausible" is ridiculous; apparently "very easy to do" by your standards, but checking your "insignificant anomaly" of one letter is simply more difficult.

"No one in their right might would put their family at risk like that."
Unless they were, in fact, doing it themselves, and there was no risk.

Counter argument: look at the time index of when those tweets were made. Look how quick those tweets were done from each other, and how fast someone screen capped that twitter feed. How else would they be able to catch one if they weren't hovering over the page, ready to press that print screen button? How fast was this fellow typing 6 tweets within 2 minutes? What is more likely? Someone has very fast typing skills, or someone was copying/pasting such tweets, screen capped them, and then deleted the account?

If the twitter addresses are fake, the FBI won't give a shit.
If they're real, whoopedy doo. What's the best they can do aside from look for IP addresses? Now that the cat's out of the bag, and Anita screwed it up by telling "the authorities" (police) and making the "threat" public, then that death threat maker is long gone. The police tell people (who have actually gone to them for help) to carry on as usual. Don't act suspicious. Let the perpetrator make the next move, the next communication. Nope. She played the professional victim card, again, and continues to do so on twitter.

"Let the FBI handle it. They have more blahblahblah"
Yet all the "news" agencies didn't even think of contacting the SFPD. All it took was one amateur reporter (Aurini) to try it out.

"Don't see a conspiracy, but you do."
And yet they couldn't do an actual investigation by simply contacting the local police for information to fact check. What an idea. And you're trying to say this is a bad practice because "conspiracy"?

"She has no reason to fabricate something that already exists."
Except when it's on her twitter feed: the only place she ever responds to anything. Which is where the "public threat" came in that lasted at most 2 minutes. Oh put she will post positive reviews and videos, and never contradictory ones.

"Mainstream journalists you criticize" "They uncovered the threat from March was actually a bomb threat."
Yeah. A news story about a threat, reported 6 months later? Seemed the ceremony went on just fine. How could anyone ignore that? Because the mainstream media did, and didn't report it for that long time? Why? What was the hold up? Isn't this rather important?

"And you have the audacity of accusing the mainstream journalists of being biased?"
And no one covers or talks to the people on the other side. Excuse me, but have you heard of #gamergate? The 5 guys from 5 guys burgers and fries? Gamasutra's Leigh Alexander? Jenn Frank, Maya Kramer? TechRaptor getting shadow banned from reddit? Ian Miles Chong? GameJournoPros? I could go on but are you paying attention? Don't you see the validity of The Sarkeesian Effect, and why it needs to be something aside from just another youtube or blog response? Shouldn't the other side have some media coverage to be taken seriously?

"No, no it doesn't. It all fits. It all makes sense."
Obviously not. He listed a few more questions. Which you skipped over.

"She has done nothing wrong."
Keep telling yourself that. The rest of us "gamers" who have half a brain can see through her biases pretty quickly.

"And the real open marketplace of ideas."
Yup. Can't wait for Anita to respond to critics after 2+ years. Or open up those comments. Anytime we'll get a free marketplace of ideas. Cause she's extremely open to alternate opinions.

"...anything immoral, are those that are perpetuating the idea that Anita is somehow a scam artist, liar and some kind of professional victim."
1) She is a scam artist, as per her promises for her kickstarter campaign that aren't met nor finished. She invented an issue that doesn't exist. It doesn't matter if other Kickstarter campaigns are also past their due date: it's the same problem.
2) She lied about being a gamer, and lies by omission in her videos, doesn't understand the 3rd person effect, etc. (big list here, but it's late.)
3) She openly profits from victimhood. Which makes her a professional victim.

"You have no evidence to support those claims."
Dozens of youtube videos over the years and numerous blog posts have plenty. Are you even looking? Exactly what kind of evidence do you want in contrary to an opinion? Don't you also mean proof?

"You've convinced yourself it's true."
Jordan and Davis, Jordan especially, have spent years analyzing Anita's work and content. If you think they're in an echo chamber, go and talk to them. Go and debate them. Go watch Jordan's days worth of videos, taking apart Anita's nonsense. There is no sexist problem with video games.

"Harass someone into silence."
By asking questions? By trying to get Anita to say anything to her detractors at all? The woman is beyond reproach. They're asking to talk to her: she has been silent. How can we trust a critic who can't respond to criticism?

Go right now. Go and email Jordan and Davis, and I guarantee they will get back to you and talk to you on the topic.

"But that doesn't mean it's not harassment."
Advice: consult a lawyer before making claims like this. I know a good one if you're that serious.

"It looks like you can dish it out, but you can't take it."
Whether Aurini was joking about legal action or serious isn't the issue. (And if he's serious, there's nothing wrong with going to legal action.) That's a direct response. Funny how I can't find LisaM's tweet anymore.

And going to legal action is very much a form of "taking" it seriously. While Aurini is no stranger to the court system, your accusation that Aurini can't take criticism is baseless.

"This guy is the unibomber"
Seriously. You're making a crack at a guy explaining his reasoning.

"Just because she wasn't a fan of video games in 2010 doesn't mean she's not a gamer. Or a fan of other types of video games."
Compare:
'I'm a gamer and I enjoy games' 'I love games. I'm a fan of games.'
To this:
'I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this.'
'I don't want to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads and it's just gross.'

She directly states. "I am not a fan of video games." That contradicts exactly that you claimed. By her own admission.

"People go through phases."
Do movie critics suddenly go through years of their life where they don't like movies? But then suddenly do when it's time to make money off them?
Oh right, she's not a game critic, she's a culture critic (whatever the hell that means. What that means: she has no business critiquing games with any kind of credibility.)

I suppose lying is also a phase. One year you're a liar, then next you're not. Kinda hard to tell, isn't it? Kinda hard to accept anything someone says when they keep going through all these "phases". Why, next year she could totally love violent video games, but hate board games, and find misogyny in card games.

"She attended X -- strange thing for someone to do who isn't a fan of video games."

See "I actually had to learn a lot about video games in the process of making this."

"She noticed many sexist trends --"
No shit.

"2 years later she launched her kickstarter, and you want to tell me she did it all for money?"
Essentially. She was doing just fine with her normal youtube channel. Extra menu graphics aren't worth $150k+.

"From way back in 2010."
She'd be speaking about/for/against sexism if today we just developed Zoetropes. 'called confirmation bias.

"She may not be your kind of gamer, but she definitely believes in what she says."
Oh, we know very well she's a dyed in the wool sex-negative feminist.

"And not being a gamer does not make her a con artist."
That's right. But lying about it does.

"At worst she exaggerated."
No, it's established to be a lie. Read her actual contradictory words above.

"But he exagerrated in his video. Does that make him a con artist?"
So a 2010 video where she's giving an off the cuff presentation where she's talking about being "not a fan of video games", she was just exaggerating? And the interview she was also just exaggerating about "I'm a fan of games"? Which one is it? Which direction do her tastes go -- this year? You know, since she goes through "phases" as you say.

"Because the financials for her charity will be made public."
And what are those financials?

"She's Damseling for dollars."
Yes. She is the thing she has stated is bad -- the Damsel in Distress -- that must be changed from gaming. Yet there she is, the living example of the thing she hates. Which is worse? Being a hypocrite in life, or condemning art because of feelings it was designed to do makes them feel as such?

Quite a strong, independent woman, wouldn't you say?

"No evidence beyond speculation."
Paypal link on her website. Been there for quite some time. Now with monthly recurring donations.

Let's see:
'All Feminist Frequency videos are available on YouTube to watch and share for free without any advertising. We are a 501(c)3 non profit charity and we rely on generous donations from viewers to make these educational videos possible.'

Love that she's a charity, yet requires donations to make these educational videos possible. I thought there was this whole kickstarter thing that happened? And the videos aren't done yet? Why does she need more money again?

We'll see how that $150k+ money's being spent, I'm sure.

"And so far I have seen none."
From the kickstarter, $250 and $500 backers will receive "DVD copy of all Tropes vs. Women in Video Games episodes in the web series. "/entire video collection. The series isn't finished. This was slated for December 2012.
A bump in production quality? I can't really tell. Maybe the CG menu graphics? Don't think that costs $150k+. Make up and hair? A new camera?

"Maybe now you understand how it feels for Anita, and many other women who are trying to bring attention to an issue they believe in."
I thought you wanted proof? Anita hasn't shown proof. Just her opinion. Games do not cause sexism. They can believe all they want, but there is no issue. So we need to show evidence, but Anita and other feminists don't have to, just because they "believe"? Nice double standard.

"Attempting to discredit Anita doesn't address her points."
She discredited herself. We can easily disregard whatever she's saying.
And Jordan and many, many others, have addressed her points, ad nauseum. Seriously, go to his channel and watch his videos. He, and many others, have been tearing her apart for years. And they are willing to dicuss and debate these ideas.

Anita? She won't say anything to critics, criticism, or have an open discussion with these people.

"And there's a reason why the actual arguments against her points hasn't done much to sway popular opinion."
Numerous articles and videos have destroyed Anita's arguments over the years. thunderf00t, Jordan, Aurini, MrRepzion, MundaneMatt, TheAmazingAtheist, at least 3 women I saw recently. They do a hell of a job destroying her "points." I don't know where you've been over the years, but you obviously haven't been paying attention. Do you need links?

"I appreciate all the support I can get."
No thanks. I tend to like listening to people without biases or agendas.