Wow, her TEDx talk is almost a direct mirror of the Jon Ronson talk I linked to in the other video.

Re. Anita and Bendilin. He freely created a game where you beat up Sarkesian, Guthrie freely pointed to this fact out to his prospective employer. Presumably they exercised their freedom of judgement to decide whether to employ him or not. Freedom. (but not from consequences). Maybe I am missing something, but if he made a game that he didn't want potential employers to see...then, err, yeah.

I don't know anything about the Greg Elliot thing, and I don't know how harassment cases are dealt with in Canada. I'll admit that I've really no idea how you criminalise harassment without it being exploited relatively easily. It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that somebody who uses feminism and false testimony to pursue personal vendettas against somebody who offended them is NOT what the feminist movement is about.

I must say I find it quite ironic for the guy in this video be talking about self-inflicted victimhood. . If there really is a cabal of feminists trying to silence those with differing opinions then, well, for the most part they don't appear to be doing a very good job to me.

Isn't there actually a 'game' where you choose the picture and 'beat it up'?

It's pretty funny that they get upset at an 'internet bully', so they become a gang of internet bullies to...well...I'm not sure...get theirs? Certainly not to stop internet bullying...they're using it as a main tactic.

Can't they be sued for publicly calling him a pedophile? Do they really accuse people of being pedophiles so often that they can't remember doing it?

I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? Unfortunately, time and time again this kind of opinion piece leaves out the most important pieces of information. I need to see the tweet that rose to the level of charging him before I form an opinion.

It sure seems like calling him a pedophile publicly meets the criminal standard, why isn't she up on charges?

Or, if you want an unbiased accounting which deals in facts, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrie_vs._Elliott

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

@newtboy
dude..the hypocrisy is staggering.
guthrie claims harassment,yet even after she blocks elliot on twitter,she continues to blast him..on twitter..and her defense?

to combat the harassment.

i am not making this up.

again,i urge all of you to watch the fairly lengthy break down by girl writes what i linked in the description.

Fighting evil does not make you evil. Fighting back against a bully does not make you a bully, it makes you a deliverer of consequences. Many bullies and bad people ADORE the 'hey you can't give me consequences or talk back to me, that makes you as bad as me' backwards talk bullshit... and that is all it is... a bullshit copout being said by shitty people and should be disregarded. People who support these people are just perpetuating terrible, repulsive behaviour within humanity. Normalizing it, supporting it, and ensuring humanity remains the garbage it is for that much longer. Telling victims they should lower their eyes/heads and take the harassment if fucking disgusting.

This guy got consequences for his actions. Fuck him.

@krelokk
what the fuck are you talking about?
WHO or WHAT is evil in this scenario?
WHO was being a bully here?
WHO was being bullied?

are you implying that because elliot had the audacity to call guthrie out for her hypocritical,unsubstantiated bullshit that somehow translates to EVIL?

in what fucking reality do you live in where that makes even the slightest bit of sense?

is my disagreeing with your comment somehow mean I am now evil?

you need to define your terms sir,because i may need to purchase you a dictionary.

who is the bully?

is it the relatively unknown video game creator,who had SIX followers on twitter and worked in a restaurant?
THAT guy is a bully?
seriously? that guy is bully?
who was later the focus of an online witch hunt which not only contacted his employer but also his friends and family?who received a constant barrage of phone calls,emails and twitters admonishing the man for creating a video game that has had ALL kinds of people as its focus,but since HIS game featured sarkesian this must,therefore translate to him hating women,while simultaneously ignoring the hundreds of other face-punch games which feature people from beiber to hillary clinton.

but THIS guy is a bully?
do you even know what bully means?
talk about cognitive dissonance.

or is it elliot?
where guthrie found it within her rights to abuse a court system to prosecute and ruin a man to make a political point?
THAT guy is a bully as well?

they got the man fired.
he is 80k in the hole due to legal fees,yet never once threatened guthrie (she admitted this in open court).never made sexual comments (again guthrie admitted this as well) and yet guthrie and her followers made spurious and unsubstantiated claims that elliot was a pedophile (which guthrie later retracted) with absolutely ZERO consequences.

and THIS guy is the bully?

your assertions make absolutely zero sense and are intellectually and morally inconsistent.

hey,it is totally within your rights to support whomever you wish,but at least have the honesty and decency to be morally consistent.

because if you want to hold to your ideology that words have effect and therefore consequences,(which i agree with) then by that metric guthrie is JUST as evil and guilty as burr and elliot.according to your logic this whole bunch should be prosecuted for "evil" and "bully" behavior.

"siccing" the internet on an individual or group of individuals and utilizing your political popularity and weight to harass,attack and disparage is,quite frankly,fucking bullying.

calling a person a pedophile and then requesting that be retweeted as a form of punishment is not only bullying,but it is slanderous and criminally libel.

so again,
when you use terms like "evil' and "bullying",
i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

Hmm... drivel. Internet name calling all around. Pretty cool.

@newtboy irt "I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? "

The video notes that the complainant in the case admits that the accused did not send her anything libelous, threatening or sexually related. That kinda covers all bases on harassment grounds, so if the only offense is "sending tweets", I would humbly suggest that she doesn't use twitter where.. people send you tweets... = \

@krelokk

I removed the last line of your post. You're entire rant/spiel/manifesto sans the dig about the accused perfectly describes the state of play with feminism as the bully. Irony is delicious... =)

@enoch irt your description

I think the difference between the racist and this guy the scale of consequences to the act they committed.

Losing a job because of a racist spiel openly given to a video camera = probably disproportionate, but it's the companies choice over who it hires, right? He has not been charged from what I could see (being a racist prick isn't a crime in the US right?), although I suspect his facebook page is gone because it got jumped on.

Losing a job, huge legal bills, facing jail time and a permanent record as a convict for having a difference of opinion = yeah, entirely disproportionate.

Activism is not inherently evil, much like a large gathering of people isn't inherently evil. It's when it get's abused.

One hopes the judge in this case sees sense and that the accused can sue the complainant for the damage she has caused to him.

A man posted rap lyrics of killing his wife after a break up. She said fuck, he is threatening. Supreme court laughed, ex-husband laughed, wife cried. So to answer your question. Probably not liable for slander. Kind of like how pols can call Obama Muslim, or Hilary a whore.

Edit Added later:

Oh, and that comment pedophile comment could be easily construed as satire, which is protected. He would have to risk a lot of money to succeed...

Oh, and more. The content could be argued that it was in good faith because someone else called him it and it was reasonably believable. (That a 13 year old girl called him out on sexual harassment.) That the source was unverifiable is inconsequential. Even when they found out the woman was over age, they have no obligation for wasting time on the issue through apologies.

Blame the law, but yeah, there is that.

I heard them say 'not libelous', and 'not sexual'. I didn't hear 'not threatening'....and this is an opinion piece, making it not fully trustworthy, especially in it's conclusions...on either side.
I would like to see the tweets and make up my own mind, not hear other people's impressions of them, people trying to make up my mind for me.
Now if SHE said in open court he never sent anything threatening...WTF is this about then?!?

Did I say the man "quoted" rap lyrics? NO. You assumed. In fact I didn't say the source of the rap at all. You want that information? He wrote the fucking lyrics towards his wife. And to the FBI agent who interviewed him. DIRECTLY to them. Honestly I didn't expect to have to spoon feed you this shit.

And btw, the first woman who called him a pedio, SHE CAN BE HELD LIABLE. However, not the feminist after. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/01/facebook-rapper-wins-at-supreme-court-in-widely-watched-threat-case

How about this, I won't comment on your stupid as fuck posts, and you don't comment on mine (Which you think are stupid as fuck.) This way we stop this feud that ONLY WE go through. This way you stop calling me racist and shit. Which of course is liable. But that is beside the point.

How about we include @lucky760 and @dag, just to be safe. I don't want some internet crusader to try and get me banned from the Sift for harassment.

@Lawdeedaw

so if someone is just repeating slander,or conspiring to get others to repeat that slander.if it is not from the original accuser,then it is not slander or libel?

is that true?
i had no idea.

seems all you have to do nowadays is accuse...sit back and watch the disintegration of your targets life and then rejoice in the wreckage.

and then pay zero consequences.

hooray for social justice warriors!

*ps-you and newt need to start making out,but we get to watch.
segsy bastards.
segsy opinionated bastards.
like me!
ok ok..lets all make out!

Lol @enoch. Making out is definitely not on the agenda.

And yes, sadly, stupid laws on slander and liability exist. Just like stupid laws exist elsewhere. They are crap and garbage. But if we can go to war over faulty intel, surely our elected officials are dumb enough to let faulty slander go unpunished.

At least insofar that words have little consequences, you can see that by the content I posted right? Where the rapper threatens his wife, an FBI agent, and school children, and gets off without a record (which I forgot to include the children.)

Passing along information goes like this. Is it reasonable to suspect someone is who they claim on the internet? Kind of (Because the internet is impossible to verify ANYONE.) This is important because the "woman" was claiming to be 13, felt sexually harassed in her vulnerable years, etc. It is therefore the child who is calling the harasser a pedio, and the feminist bitch simply repeating a "reasonable-to-believe" statement. Or some such. The offended would have to prove that the comments were A-Factually known by the repeater as inaccurate and B-Damaging, and C-Not made in satire (Go back to the rap video for proof that stupid arguments can be made.) Even the damage could be argued, as what "damages" were caused by that particular comment?

News does this ALL the TIME for effect. A lot of the time they preface comments with such statements as "According to an eyewitness" or "Allegedly" or some other bullshit. But that does little to mitigate false information's impact on people.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Did you even watch the video or read the comments. It certainly doesn't seem like it. Your comment sounds like you actually posted it in the wrong thread and you are responding to something totally unrelated. By the way I accidently upvoted your comment so whatever downvote total you end up with ...add 2.

"beat up Sarkeesian" was not satirical. It was indulgent fantasy for angry people that wanted to beat up Sarkeesian - a woman who was complaining about receiving threats to her welfare.

so then what is your response to the hundreds of other "face-punch" games?
featuring justin beiber,to hillary clinton,to even jack thompson who was making similar arguments that sarkesian was making.

where was the outrage in those cases?
those people received threats as well.
how come in those cases were viewed as either satirical or just in bad taste,but in sarkesians case it had the possibility of translating to actual violence?

even though there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate that claim?
couldn't every single one of those face-punch games be viewed as indulgent fantasy?

and if they ARE all viewed as such,how come there was nary a peep in regards to those games,yet the sarkesian one is supposed to be taken as an actual threat of physical violence?

do you not see the hypocrisy here?

this is playing victim to a victimless crime.
it is political theater dressed up as "oppression" using fear as the main driving force.

and it draws attention away from real,actual womens grievances,and THAT my friend,is the real crime.

The title here is bullshit. He doesn't face jail for "disagreeing" with a feminist. He's facing jail for online harassment of a feminist.

Whether the charge is warranted or not is another matter, but even in Canada, disagreeing with people is not a crime.

I tried to watch the video, but I couldn't get past the rampant MRA bullshit, so I went and researched the actual issue.

First, let's quit fucking pretending this is about equality.

Making a game about beating up Anita Sarkeesian is straight-up misogynistic assholery, and if you put said game out in a public forum, don't come crying when people publicise your fucking stupidity.

What Guthrie did was perfectly valid. If you make a public statement, be prepared to back it up. If I made a game about punching (for example) Donald Trump in the face, I would be perfectly happy for any prospective employer to see it. I would stand behind it as a parody/protest/whatever. So fuck Spurr, I have zero sympathy for him. If he doesn't want prospective employers finding out he's a misogynist asshole, he should have made an artistic statement to that effect in public.

Oh, and if you honestly can't understand the difference between a game of punching Sarkeesian or punching Thompson/Bin Laden/Bieber, you're either deluding yourself or you're an idiot.

Oh, and one more thing before I get accused of censorship. I am not in any way saying Spurr should not be able to make that game or it should be banned. I would vehemently defend his right to make and publish such a game, and my right to call him a complete fuckknuckle for doing so.

Now, as for Elliot, I've read several articles now, and all it's done is make depressed for the pathetic state of what is laughably called journalism in that none of them ACTUALLY CONTAINED THE FUCKING TWEETS!

I have no idea if what he said warranted a criminal charge or not, but on balance, his "harassment" doesn't appear to be of a threatening nature. I reserve the right to change my mind either way once I've actually read what he tweeted.

I pretty much agreed with you...except for this part.
Sarkeesian is another polarizing public figure, so how is making a game where you punch HER picture different from, say, Bieber (who also receives death threats from random people, BTW)...or any random picture you might upload into the 'game'? The only difference I see is the level of success at being a public figure.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I don't get what you mean. Please explain.

We're not talking about a random "beat up this picture" game, or at least, that's not the impression I got (if it IS user-generated, then I retract my statements re Spurr). We're talking about a game specifically about beating up Sarkeesian.

First, it's the old comedy motto... "punch up, not down". Sarkeesian has received multiple, unbelievably vile threats against her. More to the point, those threats are credible. She's not a famous celebrity with an army of bodyguards to protect her. There's a very real chance that someone could just assault her on the street, far more so than Bieber.

Second, the people that want to punch Bieber are doing so because he's annoying. There's really very little malice behind it in almost all cases.

You can't reasonably argue that's the same for Sarkeesian. There is a genuine and widely documented movement of people on the web who have expressed serious hatred of her.

Let me put it this way, if I compared a "Punch Bieber" and a "Shoot Bin Laden" in the head game, which would you say has more genuine ill intent behind it?

When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far.

OTOH, if someone seriously assaulted Sarkeesian, there is a sizeable group of people who be delighted by that.

We don't make judgements in a vacuum. We must take what we know of the context surrounding something to decide whether we like it or not.

A game about punching Bill Cosby in the face? We can reasonably assume it's motivated by sexual assault allegations.
Now take the same game, and instead of Bill Cosby, you can choose any black celebrity. Again, you can make a reasonable assumption, except this time we could say it's racially motivated.

Possibly I'm misinterpreting his intentions, but if so, he's not really attempting to correct the public perception of them.

@ChaosEngine
so spurr makes a mysoginistic assholery game,(which we agree) and to defend the response he receives.you point out that there was/is immense hatred for sarkesian which could translate to real world violence.

am i correct so far?

so we have sarkesian who has a large population that hate her guts.have posted the most vile threats towards her in the form of death threats and i can only imagine other very imaginative physical threats.basically a band of the most repugnant,online thugs and bullies.(i agree with you this is repulsive and disgusting).

am i still on the right page?

ok ok.lets assume your position is correct and lets also assume that sarkesian feels a real threat from this online harassment.

how does this group of vile and despicable people who hate sarkesian connect with a face-punching game? how does this game (distasteful as it is) translate to real physical harm? are you suggesting that this face-punching game somehow would CAUSE physical harm?

if so,please explain how that could be.

furthermore,you gloss over the jack thompson game (also created by spurr) as somehow being irrelevant.yet thompson does not have a security force to attend to his needs,and thompson was making the very same spurious and unsubstantiated claims that sarkesian was making.thompson was actually taking it a step further by trying to bring legislation proving the video games promoted violence.

same argument.
same reasoning and the same impetus for creating a face-punching game.

so why was it a moral imperative to expose spurr as a mysoginist in regards to sarkesian but not a misandrist in regards to thompson?

to take a stand on one and not the other is morally inconsistent.

but ok...not a big deal in the long run right?spurr didnt pay too much of a price for his poor taste,he was working poor to begin with and of little consequence.

and as i have been lectured over and over the past few days:choices/words have consequences.a position i totally agree with,just wish there was a tad more consistency in its execution.

so ok.spurr got what he deserved for putting this distatsteful,or in your words "mysoginistic assholery" of a game out there in the first place.suck it up buttercup..you got what you deserved.

ok fine.

but again,you either willingly or unwittingly ignore that the only person who is facing charges is greg elliot NOT spurr.

you would think that the man who created the actual game would be the focus of the indictment,but no..that goes to greg elliot.

who,by YOUR own standards,was a victim to a massive online group of hateful bullies who targeted him for disagreeing with the political position of guthrie,a well known toronto feminist.guthrie filed charges against guthrie for harassment.while at the very same time her followers had uncovered elliots private contacts and began a smear campaign against him,accosting and berating his family and friends. costing him job,80k in legal defense and is STILL awaiting a verdict after 3 years.

the mans life is in ruins.

and here is a little caveat that you may find interesting.in canada you do not have to prove actual harassment.you just have to "feel" harassed.

so this guthrie woman,along with her minions are abusing a court system to make a political point and using elliot to set a precedent that should disturb us all.

if you cannot see how easily this can be (and IS being) abused to control opinion and silent dissent.i dont know what to tell ya mate.

how many examples do we need where the accuser did so out of pure malice and/or revenge only to pay zero consequences for that abuse?

i implore you to read the link i provided.karen breaks it down quite succinctly.

OK, I honestly don't know if this is the 'upload a pic of your choice to punch' type of thing either, but I do think that exists, which means this isn't worse than that, if it's not that.
I do agree, she's not rich, and so not as protected. I don't agree that, necessarily, those playing the game have any intent to harm.
I also disagree that NO one has malice towards Bieber, I'm certain there are hundreds of people out there that would love to punch him in real life...and have said so online. I agree, she's seen it worse though.
I can't say which game would have more genuine ill intent, but really, I think more people would actually hit Bieber than kill Bin Laden...maybe I'm wrong and there are more people out there willing to kill rather than punch, but I kind of hope not.
I can guarantee if Bieber gets punched, without SERIOUS injury, tens of thousands of people will cheer! Me with them. he's getting better, but for a while there he really needed a good smack to the face.
It's possible there may be MORE people wishing actual harm against Sarkeesian, but not really likely, since as you admit, her celebrity is a black hole compared to Bieber's star, so exponentially more people know Bieber.
Yes, a game that ONLY allows you to punch blacks would be, by definition, racist. One that allows you to punch Cosby likely exists...and he's also received numerous, serious death threats, and doesn't have major security (but maybe more than her, I don't know). I would say it's also OK to pretend to punch Cosby...or anyone you feel like PRETENDING to punch...as long as it stops there.
Part of living in a free society is a bit of risk. Some face more than others, it's not fair, it's just reality. As my parents told me daily...no one ever said life is fair.

EDIT: Also, no one is forcing Sarkeesian to view the game. It only constitutes harassment if they somehow subject her to it, right? If people surrounded her on the street with Ipads and 'punched' her face in front of her, yeah, but it simply existing....well, I think that doesn't rise to the level of action by far. If I find out someone is playing that game with a picture of a newt....fine...just don't go punching any real newts or we'll have problems. Otherwise, go to it and get it out of your system. ;-)

@enoch, I've already said I don't know if what Elliot tweeted constitutes harassment. It certainly doesn't appear to, but once again, I've yet to see the actual tweets under discussion (and trying to search twitter is a nightmare).

I disagree with the decision to ban him from using the internet.

Finally, you and I obviously have different definitions of "succinct". I am certainly not going to watch 50 minutes of video on the subject.

"When someone did shoot Bin Laden, everyone cheered. If someone seriously assaulted Bieber, even people who are annoyed by him would say that's going too far. "

@ChaosEngine

You are waaaay to kind to people...I've said that before, and the answer has always been dismissed, but it seems true.

If Justin was assaulted with a knife in an alley many people would definitely laugh. They almost jizzed when he had shit thrown at his face and I know a few irl who wished it had broken shit on his face.

My own two cents. I wouldn't hurt him personally but I would feel relieved if he were to be struck by a car and seriously hurt. Why? One less self-entitled, whiny, addict, asshole that no longer influence the America my children will be raised in. Hopefully it would happen while he was drunk or stoned so it teaches kids a lesson.

Callus? Of course. Evil? No. But it shows contrasts. Those people who are good I value as very precious, go out of my way to help and more. People like Justin are comparatively worth negative capital. And yes, many would be glad to see him hurt.

Specifics probably matter, but I'm going to say they don't sound satirical either. The differences are that the people that you listed have an audience of hundreds of millions. Sarkeesian has hundreds of thousands, maybe a million. Making threats and childish fantasies more concentrated. Also, I'm presuming making youtube videos about the media and feminism doesn't quite buy the security Hilary Clinton / the taxpayer can afford.

Finally, I seem to remember the Clinton one was focussed on a pun and not on Clinton. It was a game where you have to beat your political opponents (literally). Hardly ground breaking comedy but its a start.

If you think this draws attention away from other problems, I'm glad to inform you that other humans have a better attention span and are capable of understanding more than one woman's grievance at a time.

I also like that she is described as a 'polarising' public figure. I doubt that. The only people that dislike her are some gamers because she criticizes some aspects of an industry they support. Everyone else either hasn't heard of her, thinks she makes interesting points, or shrugs their shoulders and says 'she might be overreaching'. Hardly a real polarising figure just because she gets your knickers in a twist.

I have to disagree.
An audience of hundreds of thousands - millions of rabid followers is quite enough. If you have over 10000 followers, you're a public figure, and you are one on purpose.
Most of those who had a 'face punch' game made using their image don't have any security. In fact, I'm fairly certain there's one where you upload any picture you want.

Some humans have a better attention span, but not many. Most people by far are NOT capable of focusing on more than one issue at a time. They may think they are, they're wrong.

She is DEFINATELY polarizing. Anyone who listens to her or knows her work either thinks she's a shining warrior for feminism, or a self centered idiot pushing feminism back decades. Very few people who know about her work have no opinion.
If she gets EVERYONE'S knickers in a twist, she's pretty polarizing.

I'm just as puzzled about that as @modulous. I enjoy her videos, sometimes agree with the points she's making and sometimes don't, but really don't understand why anyone would get worked up over them.

Why would you even watch them if you didn't find them interesting?

In my case, because I found the conversations about her and her stances interesting enough to see what she actually had said, or had been said about/to her.
If not for the disgusting things that happened to her, and the disgusting way she's responding, I would never have cared a whit about her. That said, I don't get worked up over her, but I do (EDIT:usually) strongly disagree with her. I also disagree with those that threatened her with actual harm and think they should be brought to task in some way (but not just for a dumb picture game or non threatening comment).