lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Occam's razor and all that.
The simplest explanation also tends to be wrong. Mindless platitudes and all that.
Look,
again I get that the only reason you feel the need to defend her is because she is, in fact, a her, but some of us are more interested in the whole truth thing and less on someone's reproductive organs.
The only way to focus less on someone's reproductive organs is to make the assumption that they aren't a large factor, and that fundamentally removes your ability to see the whole truth.
So no, you aren't. I know you think you are, but you aren't. And the reason you think you are is because you've been actively trained by our culture to accept tenants and modes of thought that are bluntly misogynistic.
Given that we have a societal standard to doubt female victims as potential liars in all cases of violence against women in our society, when data shows that it's not the problem the average person thinks it is. And, more importantly, that this is a threat of violence against a women and women, specifically for being women,
I think it's really fair to say that ovaries should probably be considered in the reasoning. The blunt truth here is that your inference is bad. It's really, really poor. Your taking a massive intuitive leap. Yes, Sarkeesian has received death threats before. But we know next to nothing about what kinds of threats she's received, when she's received them, how they sent them, to who, etc.
These are all factors. You're using a circular argument; your equating threats she's received and then using your assumption that they should be equal to attack her for not treating this one as equal.
If you want to make an argument, make the argument that this threat
is different, and then move to demonstrate why her reaction isn't appropriate.
But just relying on a past precedent of death threats, in general, makes for a pathetically weak inference.