Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6878484" data-attributes="member: 3400">You have to understand that intimidation often works. In an environment of fear and threats, how many people really want to be the ones making the reports? If you're already out in the public and being directly threatened like Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian, you may have nothing to lose by reporting it. But then look at what happened to Felicia Day when she spoke out against the threats - she became a target and her security compromised. That's the point of the threat in the first place - to make it too costly in stress and compromised security to speak out or report incidents. It's pretty easy for the terrorists in this situation, if we choose to use that word, to win.To illustrate this with a bit of history - look how easy it was for the Soviet and other Warsaw Pact governments to control dissent. You set up an atmosphere promoting denunciation and back it with state power to make people disappear or head off to prison camps and pretty soon, you don't have a lot of criticism. These maladjusted goons making threats in male-dominated nerd hobbies may not have that kind of coordinated power, but the potential for a lone nut job to make good on one of these threats is still a concern. Most of them are just talk, but can you really afford to ignore them all?</blockquote>