Online harassment of women at risk of becoming 'established norm'

[Guyv3r]

talk about numbers being pulled out of an ass...

[Dren The Black]

Guardian is a very good site. I don't appreciate your attitude.

I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again. Every news source is biased in someway. We just tend to overlook the bias when we agree with it.

That said, the guardian is pretty biased. You're just blinded by your agreement of their ideology.

I would disagree saying the guardian isn't quite as biased as Vox, but the guardian pushes what appears to be radfem philosophy pretty hard.

[Tennis]

I've said it in the past, and I'll say it again. Every news source is biased in someway. We just tend to overlook the bias when we agree with it.

That said, the guardian is pretty biased. You're just blinded by your agreement of their ideology.

I would disagree saying the guardian isn't quite as biased as Vox, but the guardian pushes what appears to be radfem philosophy pretty hard.

No doubt but we shouldn't act like the Guardian is Fox News/ The Blaze Level.

[Dren The Black]

No doubt but we shouldn't act like the Guardian is Fox News/ The Blaze Level.

Ha! That's funny. Fox isn't any worse than the guardian. If anything, the guardian is about as bad as msnbc. Fox is about as right leaning as cnn is left leaning. The blaze is about as biased on the other end as the guardian.

[nextormento]

Then why this talk about silencing activists or one line in the sands leads to another... that doesn´t really reads as agreeing. Chipsus crisp, i swear this forum sometimes.

Because your filters are fluff and completely irrelevant to what sparked our exchange. I'll happily elaborate on anything, but I won't let you pretend that my agreement on that end translates as an agreement on the other.

Yes: I agreed on filters, and you keep ignoring that I did. And then complain that I don't read all your stuff. Adducing tangents because I don't fully agree with your nonsense.
Dude, you are the one claiming some poster is siding with the assholes. Or the nazis, who knows. Because you, and I quote, don't understand, what are they fighting for.
It's you the one that admittedly doesn't understand. And thinks there's a fight somewhere.
It's all in your head. You projected it outside, you got told that your line in the sand cuts both ways. You are imagining things and now complain that you are spiraling an argument ad absudity.


It was really simple:
-Why would anything stop oppositions, activists or minorities from posting unless you´re saying every post of them is harassment.
-Because anyone can feel harassed by them. In fact, barring passive resistance, every single activist strategy is harassment from someone else's perspective.
You're the one drawing lines in the sand. If we enforce a means to draw those lines, other folks will exploit it to your detriment.

This is not just something agreeable. It's trivially true once and if you recognize that harassment is an issue of perception. It's unwelcomed behavior of an offensive nature. What makes an exchange into harassment is the victim casting that judgement: words are not inherently offensive, or harassing until the receiver end calls it so.

Anything else is you running in circles pretending that I somehow don't agree with X, or later Y and perhaps Z. The core of our exchange is encapsulated there: if you can draw a perceptive line, so can anyone.
It's not even a clearly defined line: you mentioned assholes and abusers. Like who the fuck are those, exactly. Assholery is not even harassment. If you draw the line at assholery, who is to stop another person at drawing the line at activism?. Because activism is a lot more unpleasant, and more importantly unwelcomed behavior than general assholery. We, activists, are annoying as all hell; there is no single bit of activism that doesn't sway someone the wrong way; so much so that the targets of activism do feel threatened and harassed.

[ellieg]

Women can't handle the bants, more at 11.

Lol. I have to agree with this.

[tehealadin]

Because your filters are fluff and completely irrelevant to what sparked our exchange. I'll happily elaborate on anything, but I won't let you pretend that my agreement on that end translates as an agreement on the other.

Yes: I agreed on filters, and you keep ignoring that I did. And then complain that I don't read all your stuff. Adducing tangents because I don't fully agree with your nonsense.
Dude, you are the one claiming some poster is siding with the assholes. Or the nazis, who knows. Because you, and I quote, don't understand, what are they fighting for.
It's you the one that admittedly doesn't understand. And thinks there's a fight somewhere.
It's all in your head. You projected it outside, you got told that your line in the sand cuts both ways. You are imagining things and now complain that you are spiraling an argument ad absudity.


It was really simple:
-Why would anything stop oppositions, activists or minorities from posting unless you´re saying every post of them is harassment.
-Because anyone can feel harassed by them. In fact, barring passive resistance, every single activist strategy is harassment from someone else's perspective.
You're the one drawing lines in the sand. If we enforce a means to draw those lines, other folks will exploit it to your detriment.

This is not just something agreeable. It's trivially true once and if you recognize that harassment is an issue of perception. It's unwelcomed behavior of an offensive nature. What makes an exchange into harassment is the victim casting that judgement: words are not inherently offensive, or harassing until the receiver end calls it so.

Anything else is you running in circles pretending that I somehow don't agree with X, or later Y and perhaps Z. The core of our exchange is encapsulated there: if you can draw a perceptive line, so can anyone.
It's not even a clearly defined line: you mentioned assholes and abusers. Like who the fuck are those, exactly. Assholery is not even harassment. If you draw the line at assholery, who is to stop another person at drawing the line at activism?. Because activism is a lot more unpleasant, and more importantly unwelcomed behavior than general assholery. We, activists, are annoying as all hell; there is no single bit of activism that doesn't sway someone the wrong way; so much so that the targets of activism do feel threatened and harassed.

And this is why people need to be careful what they wish for. If you seek to ban speech you don't like, when they come to take away your own, you have already lost, you have hung the noose yourself and crumbled your own foundations, tore down your own defenses and in creating a weapon to pound those you disagree with, failed to notice that it is a blunt instrument, not a precision weapon, and will get hammered by the same weapon.

[Raldazzar]

quite honestly, by its own definitions of unwanted contact, i'd wager EVERYONE IS HARASSED online to some degree.

[melkesjokolade]

Its already a norm

[Deleted]

The thread is about women being harassed and you're talking about some unrelated graph?

I call bullshit on women being more harassed, in every case I heard of and experienced the women/girls actually tried to start a fight in a group by setting up people against each other but always got cast away themselves.

I think some like the attention a little too much.

But as with anything, a small amount don't represent them all.

[Deleted]

Seems like i posted in the wrong thread.
Bait redirected...

[Kalis]

No doubt but we shouldn't act like the Guardian is Fox News/ The Blaze Level.

The Guardian is heavily biased towards whatever the Labour Party is currently championing, their coverage on anything vaguely political isn't reliable as an objective source.


Their football coverage is quite good though, well Amy Lawrence is, the rest are hit and miss.

[tehealadin]

I call bullshit on women being more harassed, in every case I heard of and experienced the women/girls actually tried to start a fight in a group by setting up people against each other but always got cast away themselves.

I think some like the attention a little too much.

But as with anything, a small amount don't represent them all.

As far as I am aware, they aren't, it is just the nature of the harassment tends to be different. There is some mentality among some that if it happens to a woman, it is automatically worse. Tennisace see's them as frail damsels to be saved.

- - - Updated - - -

Their football coverage is quite good though, well Amy Lawrence is, the rest are hit and miss.

Barney Ronay is good.

[Senna1251]

The only thing that can be done starts with each individual person. If you don't want to be harassed then don't act like an ass. Be smart about what you post and where. I think if all genders/camps followed these two rules, harassment would be less (someone is always going to be a jack-ass).

The only behavior you can control is your own.

[Mayhem]

Because your filters are fluff and completely irrelevant to what sparked our exchange. I'll happily elaborate on anything, but I won't let you pretend that my agreement on that end translates as an agreement on the other.

Yes: I agreed on filters, and you keep ignoring that I did. And then complain that I don't read all your stuff. Adducing tangents because I don't fully agree with your nonsense.
Dude, you are the one claiming some poster is siding with the assholes. Or the nazis, who knows. Because you, and I quote, don't understand, what are they fighting for.
It's you the one that admittedly doesn't understand. And thinks there's a fight somewhere.
It's all in your head. You projected it outside, you got told that your line in the sand cuts both ways. You are imagining things and now complain that you are spiraling an argument ad absudity.


It was really simple:
-Why would anything stop oppositions, activists or minorities from posting unless you´re saying every post of them is harassment.
-Because anyone can feel harassed by them. In fact, barring passive resistance, every single activist strategy is harassment from someone else's perspective.
You're the one drawing lines in the sand. If we enforce a means to draw those lines, other folks will exploit it to your detriment.

This is not just something agreeable. It's trivially true once and if you recognize that harassment is an issue of perception. It's unwelcomed behavior of an offensive nature. What makes an exchange into harassment is the victim casting that judgement: words are not inherently offensive, or harassing until the receiver end calls it so.

Anything else is you running in circles pretending that I somehow don't agree with X, or later Y and perhaps Z. The core of our exchange is encapsulated there: if you can draw a perceptive line, so can anyone.
It's not even a clearly defined line: you mentioned assholes and abusers. Like who the fuck are those, exactly. Assholery is not even harassment. If you draw the line at assholery, who is to stop another person at drawing the line at activism?. Because activism is a lot more unpleasant, and more importantly unwelcomed behavior than general assholery. We, activists, are annoying as all hell; there is no single bit of activism that doesn't sway someone the wrong way; so much so that the targets of activism do feel threatened and harassed.

When was the last time someone changed their mind towards oppositions, activists or minorities when they already felt harassed by their message alone? I agree there is a difference between harassing (that anyone can see as what it is) and feeling harassed because of the one who´s posting or because of the message. I hope you understand what i´m saying here. Harassment isn´t always an issue of perception.

Your oppositions, minorities or activists aren´t being silenced, they can still post and reach the ones that want to read it and even the ones that don´t want to read it. There´s quite the difference between people who feel harassed by activism blocking that person and the activist actually doing something deemed by the majority as harassment. In the end it comes down to that, you need a number of people to identify what harassment is and agree on it (at least in comparison to a spam filter like type). This wouldn´t filter out messages about one specific topic, but rather how they are written.

It´s really more like a sophisticated profanity filter, somewhat comparable to youtubes blacklist used by content creators.

[Dren The Black]

The Guardian is heavily biased towards whatever the Labour Party is currently championing, their coverage on anything vaguely political isn't reliable as an objective source.


Their football coverage is quite good though, well Amy Lawrence is, the rest are hit and miss.

That's what i've picked up from them.

[Hammerfest]

Women being harassed is certainly nothing new.

[Dreknar20]

I don't appreciate your attitude.

I don't appreciate concepts/articles that appeal to people who have the aptitude of a nutless monkey

[Tennis]

That's what i've picked up from them.

I like the Guardian's stories. Their interface is solid and I agree with the commentors and some of the writers. Seems legit to me.

[draganid]

everybody gets harassed online. rape and murder threats are par for the course for anyone playing online games.
you can either
A. brush it off for the stupid shit it is, or
B. enage and make a big deal of it so it never goes away and gets worse. and then invloves other people from both sides of your stupid twitter crusade.

less and less people chose A these days it seems