Topic: Anita Sarkeesian - Feminist Frequency - Donating in Bitcoin - page 9. (Read 39015 times)

What? You are saying that, not only she does not use her own material for her youtube videos, but needs a....... MAN!!!!! to help her write her material???  WWwwhhhooooaaaaaattt??? The horror!!!!!

If you are a Christian, please don't use that name in vain. Otherwise, don't worry about what I just said.

As for Anita and the man who writes most of the material for this strong and independent woman to bravely read from a teleprompter (McIntosh), I pray that they one day repent for what they have done and find a better path to go down.

No...I mean no. one. gives. a fuck. about Anita Sarkwhatever. I seen her videos, she's ruining the point of feminism. Basically it's like a reality show. Everything she says is (stupid), and fake/scripted in order for it to be outrageous enough to get views on Youtube and money(That's how youtube cover stars make money, except they actually do something worth while and have talent unlike Anita Sarkwhatever).

You go donate your pennies to that idiot if you want, while sensible people just laugh at her and move on.

Anyway this is the most boring topic Ive ever been on. Point is Anita is fake, boring, lame, and ugly.

Bye.

Yeah, that law about 2nd amendment passed in 1791. Good to have some background for us non-Americans...A law that has lived for more than 200 years of the right to carry guns and shooting weapons. I guess we Europeans are too "uncivilised" to have the right to carry guns as part of our basic freedoms.
Though TECSHARE I didn't know that the 2nd amendment say that you can threaten anybody you like. That's what happened to Anita. You claim somehow that the 2nd amendment gives somebody the right to threaten anybody they like anyhow they see fit, or you try to bring some message that all it had to do with was the 2nd amendment and nothing to do with threats. Maybe she didn't want to die for nothing. I think she should come to Europe more. She has come to Sweden multiple times. Also DICE is in Sweden, so yeah it has happened already.
More Anita in Sweden please! Don't lose your energy in USA, there people shoot first and ask questions later. 

You care by posting here, but what did you mean?
Donating to Anita Sarkeesian or Tim Schafer? (do you have anything else to add? hint: reasoning behind expressed feelings)

No one cares. No ones going to donate to this lunatic....Christ...

Tim Schafer is one of the people who think that Anita Sarkeesian's ideas are worth building upon.

If we just focus on him and what he knows about Bitcoin, since he has appeared on Humble Bundle which accepts Bitcoin and here's his tweet from May 10, 2013
https://twitter.com/TimOfLegend/status/332901644809420800
I wonder if anybody knows if Tim Schafer now knows more about how Bitcoin works? On the other hand donating to Tim Schafer in Bitcoin might be more probable as Anita Sarkeesian has mentioned no thing about Bitcoin(no time with all the harasment going on) while Tim Schafer has(as can be seen in the tweet).
He's clueless as how it works and seems to be willing to learn more, that's positive in my view  
Anybody up for the educational introduction?

What the OP wants to know is simple: who wants to donate their bitcoins to the anita's fraud?
The answer also is very simple: no one can stop you from doing so. Bitcoin is beautiful like that, but does not help you grow a brain.

Anita didn't cancel the talk because of a bomb threat. She canceled the talk because the venue would not force everyone to disarm. She believed that an armed law abiding, audience was too dangerous to speak for, so she canceled the talk and made it look like she was being intimidated into not talking when really she is just extremely anti 2nd amendment.

I never said you were asking for money. Maybe you misinterpreted what I said. Here's a quote from my first post here with the part that I was refering to highlited:

You misunderstood. I'm asking your opinion on Anita Sarkeesian. Is that interpreted as asking for money

Following a disturbing email received late Monday evening, Utah State University police and administrators have been working throughout the day to assess any level of risk to students or to a speaker scheduled to visit. USU police, in conjunction with several teams of state and federal law enforcement experts, determined that there was no threat to students, staff or the speaker, so no alert was issued.
 
The safety of our students and visitors is always the university’s first priority. At no time was there any imminent threat. The investigation is continuing.
 
The speaker, Anita Sarkeesian, canceled the presentation. She was concerned about the fact that state law prevented the university from keeping people with a legal concealed firearm permit from entering the event. University police were prepared and had a plan in place to provide extra security measures at the presentation.
 
All university business will be conducted as scheduled Wednesday.
 
BACKGROUND
 
Sarkeesian is a Canadian-American feminist, media critic and blogger who was scheduled to speak on the portrayal of women in video games.
A number of people at USU received an email regarding the scheduled presentation by Sarkeesian Wednesday at USU's Taggart Student Center. The email contained threats to Sarkeesian and those who attended her presentation.

Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past.
 
Prior to the threat, Utah State University police were already making preparations for security as the speaker had received similar threats in the past. Enhanced security measures were scheduled to be in place, including prohibiting backpacks and any large bags.
 
Sarkeesian is the author of the video blog "Feminist Frequency," and she writes often about how women are portrayed in video games. In 2012, she was targeted by an online harassment campaign following her launch of a Kickstarter project to fund the Tropes vs. Women Video Games series. Extensive media coverage placed Sarkeesian at the center of discussions about misogyny in video game culture and online harassment.

http://www.usu.edu/ust/index.cfm?article=54179

I like how this is progressing. We went from me being supportive towards you for wanting to persuade people you like to accept bitcoin donations to this. I don't have anything against wikipedia, I think it's a brilliant website actually, I too sometimes contribute to posts in my native language. What I tend to dislike from time to time though, is that some entries clearly lean towards a certain direction not being neutral as they should. The specific section of the Anita Sarkeesian wikipedia page seems to have included many sources, and it does a good job trying to back things written there. (It even managed to pass an anti-gamergate statement by containing it withing a couple of quotation marks. But that's another story.) It included 17 sourcing articles covering the same event to produce a paragraph of text, yet the official statement of the Utah State University police posted in their official website wasn't even mentioned once in this paragraph. And what was the title of that statement? POLICE: NO RISK TO STUDENTS

Alani123, is there anything you don't agree with here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian#Terrorist_threat_at_Utah_State_University

? Maybe you have some insight which you would like to share and improve the article in its factual accuracy? The talk page exists so that you can add your point of view + arguments. Maybe your part of the Bitcoin community is afraid of Wikipedia talk pages, generally
The most innocent of pages are talk pages, which is for discussions minus rantings(though you can rant, you are allowed to but it's not like your argument is gonna get any further with adding any rantings)

I believe TECSHARE forgot to add a couple of  . At least this is how I read it but could be wrong.

Indeed it is at times. But when it comes to political corectness and controversial events it can be as biased as the authors.

And since tjohej asked for examples...

Why wikipedia isn't credible in some cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U26h7dazIO4
I guess you could also take the dogecoin and Antonopoulos incidents as other examples as well.

Colleges Injecting feminist propaganda into wikipedia: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/06/wikistorming-colleges-offer-credit-to-corrupt-wikipedia/
Feel free to look up for more sources if you dislike fox.

Wikipedia: a well known bastion of truth and high standards in sourcing.  EDIT: 

You can't really stop about focusing on people's person instead of content. An unhappy user of Wikipedia? Guess you wouldn't donate your Bitcoin to Wikipedia

To everybody else: You wanna contribute to Wikipedia? Take the hint that there's no "critisicm" section at the Anita Sarkeesian Wikipedia article. If you find any I'll be surprised.

Do you consider that some people are censoring any information from the Anita Sarkeesian Wikipedia article? Can you provide sources or will this thread just continue with rantings minus backing up claims?

Quoting the PM I received from tjohej.

Great, I see you were able to mention a few notable examples that are not female. That doesn't really prove anything against the fact that most of her supporters are female. Doesn't it sound logical that the majority of the supporters a female criticising the depiction of women in the virtual world would also be female? There is no good reason to deny that.

If you were to have a look at her twitter followers, this would've been perfectly clear. I guess it would be even more clear if stats like her kickstarter backers, tumblr followers/hashtag users, youtube subscribers, website viewers were more accessible.

Oh additionally, bringing up wikipedia as a way to make the information you represent seem more accurate isn't always the best thing to do. And things are probably worse in this case. Wikipedia is publicly accessible and anyone can edit it. In the past feminist activists have been raiding wikipedia with mass edits in an attempt to inject feminism into Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian

Check the question "Q1: Why is there no criticism of Sarkeesian or her work?"