Slashdot Mirror
The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll
HughPickens.com writes James Swearingen writes at The Atlantic that the Internet can be a mean, hateful, and frightening place — especially for young women but human behavior and the limits placed on it by both law and society can change. In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online. "Like banner ads and spam bots, online harassment is still routinely treated as part of the landscape of being online," writes Swearingen adding that "we are in the early days of online harassment being taken as a serious problem, and not simply a quirk of online life." Law professor Danielle Citron draws a parallel between how sexual harassment was treated in the workplace decades ago and our current standard. "Think about in the 1960s and 1970s, what we said to women in the workplace," says Citron. "'This is just flirting.' That a sexually hostile environment was just a perk for men to enjoy, it's just what the environment is like. If you don't like it, leave and get a new job." It took years of activism, court cases, and Title VII protection to change that. "Here we are today, and sexual harassment in the workplace is not normal," said Citron. "Our norms and how we understand it are different now."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
Every year a new generation of kids come on line, fueled with anonymity and alcohol, people post stuff they wouldn't say to someone's face. So fuck off the lot of you!
What about automated hate? Bots that sends hateful messages directed to all different types and groups of people? Would the bot-maker be liable for online harassment then?
Obligatory XKCD coming soon.
Judging by this summary, the trolls are alive and well, I'd say.
Oh no, not this topic again... Trolls don't care about their tragets' gender. They just want the most harm for the least effort. Women generally are the ones who get offended and emotional about this stuff, and therefore are much easier and more exciting targrta. Men just ignore it or fight back. As they say, the easiest way to make someone stop bullying you is to ignore it and not be offended or bothered (or at least not show it). Either thay, or swing back if the situation calls for it. The bully will move on to someone weaker and raiser to get a rise out of.
The definition of harassment, at least where I live, is "unwanted sexual advances", meaning the distinction between flirting and harassment is purely based on subjective experience. Good luck trying to find a girlfriend without "harassing" anyone!
We have had trolls since the dawn of humanity. Finding them on the internet is nothing surprising. Internet trolling won't disappear unless you make vast and terrible changes to the internet, or you stamp it out of humanity itself.
I think there's a definition between trolling and harassing. I think this summary confuses the two. There's a clear difference between trying to bait someone, and following someone around on the Internet harassing them without end.
Just look at this: http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/laws/california.shtml
You don't need to read all of it. I haven't read all of it, and "A person is liable for the tort of stalking when the plaintiff proves all of the following elements of the tort:" seems very reasonable. Maybe I should read all of it, but oh well.
I'd rather mock your tiny cock.
Why do we constantly have all these articles on Slashdot about women being repressed at every turn? I'm getting tired of seeing all these stories about how women are all victims on the internet.
How about ignoring the opinion of people for which you don't care? The more you pay attention to a troll, or rather the more attention they get, the more trolling they will do.
We already have laws for harassment, stalking, death threats etc. We don't need any more just because it's "... on a computer."
Okay. Well, for starters, they're so soft. And they smell so good. I hate them! (will this do?)
Since women found about 9gag and started to participate in making memes it definitely got worse.
On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog. So how dog harassment numbers look like? Probably the same.
According to PA's Greater Internet Fuckward Theory (GIFT), it is gender-neutral and widespread. It is unfortunate, but that is the only way it could exists and still allow unauthenticated participation. To me, this unauthenticated quality that allows anonymity is a lot more valuable than eliminating GIFT asshatery.
Lets censor and police the internet not because of bomb and drugmaking tutorials and terrorism forums.
Lets do it because someone might insult females online.
Every single person that have spent any extended time online in an environment where you communicate anonymously with strangers have been insulted, harassed and so on. It happens because you eventually end up in a competitive situation(games or arguments).
But of course when xXxPonyWarrior2002xXx calls me a 'shit-eathing motherfucking fag-whore' and wishes me death from cancer and fire simultaneously it's friendly banter between two men. But when he calls GamurGrrl99 a slut it's suddenly a confirmation that all men are misgyonistic pigs and that we can't have such a thing as a free internet anymore because it's full of heartless trolls.
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
I've seen a lot of news about trolls and trolling but it seems that it's rather loosely on an almost arbitrary basis. "Troll" has been used to described a stalker, an asshole, a person with an impolite opinion, a racist, sexist, bigot etc etc
From one online dictionary we can learn that "troll" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/troll?s=t) has nothing to do with online activity. Seems this word is now re purposed to what the urban dictionary has an entrie for: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll)
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
Now by that definition which seems to be very much the case in many references is such a person deserving of punishment? prison? -our norms are dynamic. With enough trolls trolling will be the norm.
The article mentions human behaviour and I believe trolling is an aspect of bullying which is very much natural (although incorrect) and normal. I say this because it's a complete fallacy to tie "trolling" with stalking or sexual harassment.
We need some clarity on this rather than all this blanket FUD nonsense about trolling. When a person gets mouthy in real life he might get locked up for 24 hours for "disturbing the peace". This includes some pretty colourful language. If this is consistent against one specific person then that is harassment, there is a legal framework for this.
Has harassment stopped? bullying? -while not justifying it, I argue it never will cease because it's part of human nature.
Our only hope is to create a finer definition to stop this umbrella term which means different things to different people at different times without consistency; and furthermore we need a punishment befitting of the offence if there indeed was one at all.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated.
-Trolls
Another generalization to the fucking word troll! Awesome!
STALKING IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS STALKING.
HARASSMENT IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS HARASSMENT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
CREATING FRAUDELENT INFORMATION TO DEFAME SOMEONE IS STILL DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. AND FRAUD.
Stop trying to shut down the people who decided your fucking house in minecraft should look like a penis to you can make fucking anti troll laws. What's next? Anti not being nice and forgiving me to laws? Fuck you.
Next time someone does a smear campaign online and follows you, ARREST THEM, If I went around some town POSTING PICTURES ALL OVER that were private, fucking wrong, embarassing and put private info on it and other things, I WOULD GO TO JAIL AS THAT IS ILLEGAL
So it is on the internet too is it not?
TROLLING - When a comment is made to rile up or bait other people into a discussion. E.G People in Canada don't have roads.
That is a TROLL. It's also not a big fucking deal.
However 'BLAH BLAH THIS WOMEN IS A WHORE FOR CRITIQUEING GAMES, HERE IS HER SLUT ADDRESS'
That is INVASION of privacy, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT, DISTURBING THE PEACE and many other things if you added more to it.
Learn the fucking laws people, and I mean you too police officers, and fucking use them properly. Fucking anti not nice to be law bullshit.
Castration is on the table.
Every troll dies, children. Not every troll truly lives.
This article is a troll. Trolling will remain alive and well unless we ban it. But if we eliminate anonymous speech (as wags like David Brin suggest) then we will harm free speech. The only way to solve this problem utterly is to change the way we feel about women, and if that could happen overnight, it probably would have done so already.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
JM3S SWAARNGEN WRIETS AT DA ATLANTIC TAHT DA INTERNAT CAN B A MAAN HAETFUL AND FRIGHTENNG PLAEC — 3SPECIALY FOR U WOMEN BUT HUMAN BHAVIOR AND DA LIMITS PLAECD ON IT BY BOTH LAW AND SOCEITY CAN CHANG3!!!!1111! OMG WTF IN A PEW RAS3ARCH CENT3R SURVEY OF 2849 INTERNET UESRS ONA OUT OF 3V3RY FOUR WOM3N BTWEN 18 Y3ARS OLD AND 24 YEARS OLD REPORTS HAVNG BAN STOKAD OR S3XUALY HARASED ONLIEN!11!!1!1! LOL LIEK BANER ADS AND SPM BOTS ONLIEN HARASMANT SI STIL ROUTIENLEY TR3AETD AS PART OF TEH LANDSCAEP OF BNG ONLIEN WRIETS SWEARNG3N ADNG TAHT WE R IN DA 3ARLEY DAYS OF ONLIEN HARASMANT BNG TAEKN AS A S3RIOS PROBLEM AND NOT SIMPLEY A QUIRK OF ONLIEN LIEF!!111! OMG LOL LAW PROF3SOR DANEIL3 CITRON DRAWS A PARAL3L BTWEN HOW SAXUAL HARASM3NT WAS TRAAETD IN TEH WORKPLAEC DACAEDS AGO AND OUR CURANT STANDARD!111!!!! LOL THINK ABOUT IN DA 1960S AND 1970S WUT WA SADE 2 WOMAN IN TEH WORKPLAEC SAYS CITRON!1!1!!!1! LOL THIS SI JUST FLIRTNG!1111111 OMG TAHT A SEXUALY HOSTIEL ANVIRONMENT WAS JUST A PERK FOR MEN 2 ENJOY ITS JUST WT ENVIRONM3NT SI LIEK!!!!!11 OMG IF U DONT LIEK IT LAAEV AND GET A NU JOB!1!!1!11 IT 2K YEARS OF ACTIVISM COURT CAESS AND TITLE VI PROTECTION 2 CHANGE TAHT!!1!1 OMG WTF H3R3 WE R 2DAY AND SEXUAL HARASMENT IN TEH WORKPLAEC SI NOT NORMAL SADE CITRON!11!1! WTF LOL OUR NORMS AND HOW W3 UNDERSTAND IT R DIFAR3NT NOW
ACORDNG!1!1! WTF LOL 2 SWEARNGEN DA LIEKLEY SOLUTION 2 INTARN3T TROLS WIL B A COMBINATION OF THNGS!11!11!11 OMG LOL TEH AXPANSION OF LAWS LIEK TEH ONA CURANTLEY ON DA BOKS IN CALIFORNIA WHICH EXPANDS WUT CONSTITUTES ONLIEN HARASMENT CUD H3LP PUT DA PRESUR3 ON HARASARS!!1!!! WTF TEH UPCOMNG SUPR3MA COURT CAES ALONIS V!!1!!!11 OMG DA UNIETD STAETS LOKS 2 TEST TEH LIMITS OF FRE SPECH V3RSUS THREAETNNG COMENTS ON FAECBOK!11!11! OMG WTF CAN A COMBINATION OF LEGAL ACTION MARKET PRESURE AND SOCEITAL TABO WORK 2GATHAR 2 CURB HARASM3NT????!!! OMG WTF LOL ASKS SW3ARNGEN!!!1!11!1 OMG LOL 2 MANY PAOPL3 DO 2 MUCH ONLIEN FOR THNGS 2 STAY DA WAY TH3Y AER!11111!11 WTF
You have to consider that some believe the things they are saying. That is free speech not trolling. The fact that the person is raging and calling them a troll doesn't make them one.
I agree that the death of Internet Trolls is inevitable because Facebook and Google are killing all the communities Trolls strive in, but comparing Internet Trolls with sexual harrasser or stalker is complete nonsense. I invite the author to read Wikipedia's excellent definition of an Internet Troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why do the media feel the urge to distort the old meaning of a word? Trolls target a side of an argument and are thrown in a public space. They don't target a person. Hiding harassment behind another name isn't helping.
none too soon that crud is physically & spiritually bankrupting us while we pay for more of it. phewww... meanwhile good neighbors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUeNtM6qakk bad "weather' https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wmd+weather+media+censorship 1000s of our genuine spiritual & physical allys continue dying daily from 100% preventable starvation, rockets red glare, babys bursting in air etc... still no one is responsible,, or even aware.. run censor that....
Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn will be here for a while. So, no, internet trolls will not die anytime soon... Let us also not forget that the term 'social justice warrior' is just a synonym for troll.
The essence and intent of the internet troll cannot be stopped, it will only be abstracted into more subtle and passive aggressive manifestations. Akin to people who develop extremely bizarre fetishes (i.e. the very act of renting an adult movie rather than anything to do with watching the content it contains) restriction will only cause it to take a more vague and flowery form in the direction of innuendo hinting at the intended message. The internet is extremely good at "rooting around damage" as so many here have often said.
As for all this talk about violent threats and actual harassment, aren't there already plenty of laws on the books for that sort of thing?
When looking at the big picture, the people who bring the most hostility to online communities aren't the traditional trolls. These people may "shitpost" and may engage in petty arguments or name-calling, but they're rather harmless.
It's the so-called "social justice warriors" who are far more harmful in practice. While trolls do what they do "for the lulz", the "social justice warriors" actually take what they do seriously. They are oblivious to the damage they cause to online communities.
The "social justice warriors" don't just post comments, like traditional trolls do. "Social justice warriors" do everything they can to actively censor anyone they choose to target. They attack, and attack, and attack some more.
"Social justice warriors" create the most toxic, awful, hostile communities around. Just look at Reddit, or even Hacker News. It's common to see the vile, repulsive harassment of people there who don't happen to hold the opinions that have been deemed to be "correct" by the "social justice warriors". Those places are much worse than, say, Slashdot, which has a much more balanced and fair moderation system that isn't as open to the abuse that the "social justice warriors" prefer to engage in.
To be fair, I'm entirely in favor of men and women being equal in all ways which are logical. This means that I think it's nice to be able to pee standing up but I don't see the point in purchasing devices for my daughter to do the same. I also don't have any person urges to experience menstruation or pregnancy. I do think however that for air conditioning purposes, wearing a kilt might not be too bad.
I remember a friend of mine in the early 90s being fired and sued by his company for the fact that he was legitimately researching in a newspaper and the back page of the section he was reading had a full page J.C. Penny lingerie advertisement. A complaint was filed against him for sexual harassment and intentional objectification of women in the work place. Nothing came of it, but he had trouble getting a new job after this.
I know of many teenagers who play video games on the Internet who would likely fall victim to the fact that they lack the elocution when expressing themselves which these measures would enforce.
Also, as an example of an extremely narrow mind, she is thinking in terms of a single government and single country. There are at least 100 countries where measures would have to be implemented to enforce the same standards the U.S. introduced to manage harassment in the workplace. Let's not forget that anonymity is much easier to achieve online.
I think it's best to consider that it should be more easily possible for people to block and report each other on online services.
As the old saying goes "We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias..."
But that's not true anymore is it? These "women" now exist on the internet, and as long as they keep trying to be "women" on the internet, people will call them out for it. People call "women" skanks because they fill their profiles with pictures of themselves looking like skanks. People harass "women" because they keep pointing out how unfairly they're being treated because they're "women".
There are now "women" in gaming, "women" in business, "women" fighting for "women" and more power to the "women". Why? If these "women" would just stop trying so damn hard, then there would be room for everyone.
But that'd mean having to compete with everyone else on equal terms, wouldn't it? The "women" wouldn't be able to rely on their pretty looks and the empowerment of other "women", and they'd receive no special attention from all the nerds on the internet. We'd all be equals, each anonymous entity carrying its own weight, relying on words to enforce their ideas. But we can't have that. Only "women" can be equal.
This isn't about sexual harassment, but controlling the internet, and implicitly people in general. A lot of the powers that be have decided that, like other forms of media, they need to sanitize it in the name of control. (even with games, google gamergate) They want a name and an ID behind every post, they want to create "accountability". They gleefully ignore the fact that any woman, gay person, person of color, persecuted minority can take on an anon alias and argue their beliefs, do their work on merit alone. Seriously, how do we even know that Satoshi, the bitcoin creator, isn't a black lesbian? The internet frees productive people from race and gender in a way that before was never even remotely possible.
So maybe, just maybe, the people who want to make it an issue now, are the doing it not because of some high morality, but because they are discovering they can't compete on merit. But the issue is way deeper that that. In today's world, a lot of media and games are controlled via copyright, but copyrights by their very nature require centralized control by those who control them to work. Yet the internet is doing just the opposite, it is moving into the direction of decentralized control, threatening a lot of people, who happen to have a lot of money.
Oh look, it's another story about online abuse in which a bunch of commentors launch into an enthusiasic and presumably unintentional justification of everything the story says.
He goes first, then follows the controversial poster, then follows the poster who says anything contrary, then goes the poster who doesn't toe the approved line.
Freedom of speech means tolerating some trolls. Better that than to lose that freedom.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
the death of the Internet Troll and all, but then, if "banner ads and spam bots" could go after those trolls, that'd be sweet.
Kill them all until we live in a perfect shiny world where only the government knows best. About everything.
front page: classic > story page: beta > story page: click classic link > front page: classic > story page: beta > click classic link > front page: classic > story page: betaalkrlhtjgUYFYUGAYSFIA&TRWGAIYSGIFTAISF&TFGAISUFGSAFI DIE DIFUCK YOU CUNTS
Oh. That didn't take long.
[FUCK BETA]
Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are
If you don't like it, leave and get a new internet.
If the politicians and law-makers of the world were to be trusted, this would be a good idea. But my question would be: what happens when the lawmakers, judiciary, police and politicians all come back to the people and say, "Well, these laws aren't tough enough, here's a load more that we need..." ?
The net effect will be that privacy will be truly, utterly gone from the internet. It means that stalking can still continue, but if it does, it just means that you're being stalked by a cop, a politician, or someone else with access to that data.
The worst part of that will be that the imbalance created is perfect for stepping on little people, perfect for protecting anyone in power who happens to be guilty, or a little grey at the edges, because they can.
The saying "Don't feed the trolls" came about because the trolls are attention whores that thrive on creating "SJW's" for the sake of entertainment, until they're forced to defend defend defend themselves when other commenters get around to pointing out how stupid their attacks are.
I believe the "vile, repulsive harassment" belongs to the trolls, however. You don't get to bully others with "shitposts", "petty arguments", and "name-calling" and then play the victim when you're treated in kind. Also keep in mind that it's the trolls provoking that causes the SJW's to come out of the woodwork. If the trolls go away, there's nothing for the SJW's to defend, and they go away as well.
To quote Mr Wu: "White Cocksucka... YOU! SWIDGEN!"
Since I have been doxxed already, can someone of the friendly chaps of GNAA send me an invite so I can join them and protect the internet from MRAs and SJWs?
"Social justice warriors" do everything they can to actively censor anyone they choose to target. They attack, and attack, and attack some more.
I remember reading a little while back that the YouTube "Star Wars Kid" had become a lawyer and was working for some sort of culture ministry in Quebec. I thought "Good for him! He made it through a negative part of his life and now he's doing some good in the world!" But then a Canadian responded to the story and pointed out that "language and culture" in Quebec has a much more ominous meaning than it does in most other places. Essentially, this kid was purportedly working, not to promote arts & culture, but as a legal bully for some Quebec nationalist/separatist types who want to harass anyone not putting their signs in only French and to threaten anyone who didn't put "French culture" ahead of English culture.
That was sad to me. It seemed that the bullied had become the bully. Sometimes you can think you're doing something good. But even if you are pursuing a noble cause at first, you can cross over a line to the point where you start seeing your critics as evil and wanting to silence them by force. When you cross that line, you're no longer pursing a noble cause. Any merit in your cause goes out the window the second you decide to impose it at sword-point. At that point, you're just another asshole in a power struggle.
SJW's may think they're doing good. But to me they're just another bunch of assholes in a power struggle. And I would much rather live in a world where there are some internet trolls than a world where I have to walk on eggshells on the internet and watch everything I say, lest I be booted off for inadvertently offending some new group of victims that I wasn't even aware existed.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If the trolls go away, there's nothing for the SJW's to defend, and they go away as well.
History teaches us that it is not so. When all the important topics are exhausted, the standard is elevated and previously petty points are blown out of proportions.
Wasn't troll supposed to mean someone that writes controversial or inflamatory things (even if they don't really believe them) just to get other people debating (fighting) about it so they can sit back and watch the fireworks. Now it's cyber bullies and people who harass women online. It sounds like the old/new definitions of hacker. This new English, it changes faster than Double Talk!
I thought sexual harassment involved touching somebody? No?
Maybe I didn't get the memo?
Or is this some US thing I don't get?
Please fill me in.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
One reason this topic pops up so suspiciously often lately is that Slashdot wants to cover Gamergate, but doesn't want to be upfront or honest that it's doing so (and taking a side). Two months in, there has yet to be a straightforward article summary/thread covering the journalistic lapses, the universal media blackout including user comment/forum censorship, and the desperate synchronized "Gamers Are Dead" propaganda blast.
Disagreement is not trolling. Refusing to fund contemptful clickbait is not trolling. Exposing corruption is not trolling. The submission template of "misogyny, harrassment, terrorism, misogyny, harrassment, terrorism . . . oh btw Gamergate" (even if the GG mention only comes in the extended summary or TFA) has one purpose: a thinly veiled smear. And it doesn't fool us.
Someone else accused Slashdot of censoring Gamergate coverage in the firehose, as in outright deleting multiple submissions that had been voted up. A year ago I still had enough respect for Slashdot to give it the benefit of the doubt, but the condescension and contempt demonstrated by the Beta fiasco and the abysmally one-sided GG submissions has taken care of that.
"Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" I'm not sure how this can happen when online anonymity (for the average person; whether or not any of us have true anonymity is up for debate) is so pervasive. There will always be people who only do the right thing when others are watching and know who they are. This is from personal experience only, but those people exist in disturbing numbers both online and offline. Thoughts?
I can't wait to read some hate-filled slashdotter's pathetic tirade against women. Have at it, chaps.
Women: A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that an enire gender seprate from male exists, is ludicrous...
Sadly I don't really have the time to do justice to such a classic troll.
"Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?"
Evidently, all systems of moderation and meta-moderation by users have proven ineffective. But the frequent scoldings we see here evidently show promise.
According to the actual study, men are the most common victims of trolls. Only if you restrict yourself to looking at sexual harassment, are women more likely to be targeted, and only by a small margin (3%).
Sorry, I don't buy it. You can't legislate behavior, well you can but it doesn't really do any good. Just look at the ethics laws for corporations and politicians, then their behavior, and you can see that this is true.
Besides, this "research" comes from a Washington DC "think tank" which means that they produced the results that they were paid to produce. Not to be confused with actual research.
Posting anonymously to spare my account.
I'm a woman who's been participating in online discussions for over a decade. I also work in IT. Not once have I ever been harassed or trolled, which actually seems very odd to me. I haven't been shy about stating my opinion on Slashdot, Reddit, Twitter and various tech & political blogs. I haven't made an effort to hide my gender. I've had people vehemently disagree with me and express their annoyance with me and respond sarcastically to things I said. But trolls have left me alone.
I honestly do not understand how I've been so lucky. Many people I follow and read - male and female - have been trolled and harassed. I wish I could figure out what it is I've unwittingly done to avoid the trolls for all these years so that everyone could do it. All I can guess at is maybe I'm too boring or not high-profile enough to attract trolls.
I thought trolls just trolled people and sexual harassment was to bother someone on a sexual level... Let us not confuse the two, well unless you're assuming that as sexual creatures, all of our actions, communications, and trollings are innatley sexual. If this be the case, I think you might find yourself in quite the dilemma - Grouping people up as 'the bad guys' is a pretty Hitler thing to do, before long parents are pedophiles and the Bill CIinton is the head of the largest sexually active faction on earth. Or something like that. Either way, lets try and keep these problems seperate trolls live on the internet, people live in real life, maybe work to ratify the ERA before trying to tackle such a... delicious topic.
Death threats are already illegal. Saying you're going to use your laser balls to chop someone in half is trolling and isnt a death threat. its not even reality in any shape or form. To those in the internet trolling business, don't make death threats. Just dont. But to all you pussies who cant be called a stupid fag without crying assault, get your shit together. And to people in the SJW camp that tweet about their received (or perceived) threats, rather than calling the police, stop being a martyr and start being sane. I have been told time and time again that i not only should be, but that i will be murdered because i am not a christian and i am damning people to hell by criticism of christianity. I have been told i will be stabbed for not being a muslim. its not that it would be hard to find me if one really was on a mission. but these simply are not credible. not even enough to lose any sleep. they're good for a laugh, and even if someone sincerely thinks i _should_ be murdered, its a whole different breed of animal that is going to get on a plane, stalk me from the bushes and knife me. i can call myself a purple unicorn in text on some forum, but that doesnt make it so. people with honest and true hate for others will still find the logistics of hunting someone down and murdering them more complicated than typing shit on the internet. peace to everyone, except the people i will execute with my super sharp tiny penis, when i stab it in their jugulars.
This is especially awesome because there are people who chose to deal with important issues by spewing hate. Think about the #GamerGate debate: Those who are opposed to the people who use the hashtag say the worst things, and most of them aren't even anonymous.
Not every troll truly lives.,P>Actually, no troll really lives, for he or she is more broken than most. Unable to gain positive attention, they settle for (and attempt to cause) negative attention - it's better than not being noticed at all, isn't it?
In the final analysis, trolls are really just sad, pathetic people. So fuck 'em.
That is all.
But if one actually follows the link, one reads that "Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats." [emphasis added]
That blows are rather large hole in the thesis which the poster and many others seem to be implying, that internet harassment is primarily rooted in misogyny.
This is not to in any way justify the harassment of women. But if you want to know why there's a backlash, part of the cause (not a justification, a cause) may be the ongoing distortion of the facts about violence and harassment.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Feminists should be killed.
Men have never truly stood against them.
It needs to happen.
I'm disappointed in the comments on this article - already it has started: the wailing about pure meritocracy, the defense of anonymity, the use of "female" as a noun, victim-blaming, false equivalencies. Mod down.
On meritocracy: biological men who become women are startled to discover how they are treated.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119239/transgender-people-can-explain-why-women-dont-advance-work
On sexual harassment: Post something with a female screen name, and some troll will treat it as a direct provocation and attack. It's an easy enough experiment, try it yourself sometime.
"mainstream" websites have been taken over by sjws and feminists
say anything controversial and get censored/banned, just like in real life if you say the wrong thing in a private conversation and a woman happens to overhear it you can lose your job
our modern society is built on the labor, suffering, and death of the 80% of men who barely get to participate in any of its benefits
women and the 20% of "alpha/desirable" men are the ones who get all of the benefits
the solution for the 80% of men is to recognize this and opt out, stop working for a society which expects to bleed you dry until you have no more use then discard you
live your life for yourself and for nobody else
Getting tired of this cycle where every few years a new glut of people discover the internet and expect it to conform to their expectations instead of adapting themselves to the new environment. There are two worlds in play here and you can't just mesh the two. I know this will be written off as another "just part of the landscape" thing but this cycle is very real. The summer really is endless.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html
Men get more abuse online but trolls are a women's issue? It seems to me that someone is trying to tie trolling to women's rights to get feminist structures to support censorship online. I don't really think that someone cares about women so much as convincing them that censorship is in their best interest.
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
Of course not. Defining it would undermine the censorship power of people who want to ban/control/censor "trolls". A vague definition that includes anything from "classic" trolling -- inflammatory opinions about a topic designed to elicit responses ("If Macs didn't suck so much...") to whatever existing harassing, threatening or fraudulent behavior has been re-labeled trolling allows maximum latitude for those given the authority to censor it.
I think "the new trolling" is a complicated concept, driven by the large number of people who weren't users of longtime Internet social forums (web-based message boards, USENET) but have come online in the age of Facebook and have sort of everyday expectations of civil social engagement which are less common. They may see what passed for heated debate in years past (EMACS! vi!) as pretty hostile.
Another driving force seems to be really extreme people who seem kind of publicity-driven who really seem to embrace what amounts not to trolling but to harassment and defamation, either just for spite and publicity or with some kind of weak self-righteous justification.
When you want a particular solution, you continue to claim a problem exists over and over and over again until people believe it and demand the solution you want to provide. Hegalian dialectic 101, and in this case they (the State and the cronies putting people into offices) want Internet Censorship.
In fact the Government owns their own Troll armies, provides them play books, and pays them YOUR money (collected in taxes) to Troll. If we know that the US and UK Governments are doing this, we should assume that other Governments are doing the same. We also know that large corporations have hired trolls, and paid them to troll as well. What is constantly overlooked in discussions of "Trolling" is whether or not a Government/Corporate paid troll campaign is involved. It's a fair question, but our state controlled media does not ask the question.
In no way is this an attempt to claim that shitty people don't exist. The issue is, that the shitty people are not the majority and a good number of shitty people happen to be in the Government. "SJW"s are often co-opted by the Government (see COINTELPRO/Mocking Bird), and the Dunning-Kruger effect means that many of these SJWs are unwittingly behaving as agent provocateurs.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I might add that the Snowden documents included a foil which described pretty much this "targeted troll" behavior as a technique to disrupt belief online. I presume it was being presented to government officials as technique, rather than as, say, caution.
Disclaimer: IANAL
You have the right not to be harnessed in the workplace. Companies don't like being sued for a "hostile workplace". But, you short of assault, or character assassination, you have little legal right to block someone from saying something to you or about you. There is no legal right to not be offended, but there is a constitutional right to free speech. And I understand that it's not an unlimited right, but to all of you PC types who want more limits on it...fuck you!
Just another day in Paradise
Actually, no troll really lives, for he or she is more broken than most.
Actually, trolls are objectively better than most. For one to troll, one must
1) Have the necessary wealth to afford a lifestyle that involves a steady access to the Internet and a lot of time to kill on said Internet. If the wealth comes from their day job, that implies they're like Patrick Bateman from American Psycho. If the wealth comes from parents, that implies their parents are rich and lenient enough to support their lifestyle.
So they may be psychopaths, but they objectively live in affluence.
2) They also need a certain level of literacy, rhetoric, and even tech savvy, so that they are equipped to troll. If you're too stupid, you'll just look like an idiot, not a troll.
They may be psychopaths, but they do have hard skills.
3) They need a certain level of charisma to trick people to fall for their baits and cons. They need to understand a certain level of psychology, to figure out what buttons to press to get a rise out of people.
So they may be psychopaths,but their soft skills are also not to be underestimated.
Consider the common stereotype of a troll being the socially inept basement dweller. Thing is, "basement dweller" is only derogatory because society assumes basement dwellers had all the potential to participate positively in society, and they just choose not to. They COULD and SHOULD move out and get a real job. They COULD and SHOULD make something of themselves. Society assumes the potential for success is there.
It's pretty simple. The next time a feminist blogger gets her panties in a bunch ask her what it would take for her to go away permanently. Under what set of conditions does feminism become obsolete?
I bet you she doesn't have an answer because she never wants to stop meddling.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Think about in the 1960s and 1970s, what we said to women in the workplace.
I wasn't even born for most of that period, let alone saying things to women in the workplace back then.
You need to adjust the standards of the group as a whole not the behavior of the individual troll. The problem most often isn't the troll it's the others that either view the material or egg them on instead of flocking to surround the victim and protect them. This is the opposite of the way people behave in real life (with some exceptions) and it could be that all that is needed is time for such standards of behavior to become the norm for online activities as well.
Unless humans somehow were to lose their human nature, but then they wouldn't be human.
Very typical SJW troll tactic. Exaggerate his position to the extreme and then *pretend* you knew that was what he meant. Smashing.
If "your mom" counts, quite a few ACs seem to know
The outrage is over a specific level of harassment and they are right to be upset about it. However, I do not support broad-brush solutions like eliminating online anonymity. I also don't know of a "better" alternative. People want to attack it directly which is not how you deal with trolls. At least some of these "gamers" are just spewing venom because they know it will keep the shitstorm whipped up, and the other side of the fence won't admit that some of the comments are posted insincerely because it helps their cause if all the "bad guys" are seen as legit threats.
Yesterday's and today's comics on Dilbert show the proper response to sexual harassment.
dilbert.com/2014-10-22/
dilbert.com/2014-10-23/
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
> the trail of damage you leave behind
I don't think you read what GP is warning against.
Let us know if we should get someone to read the post aloud for you, and explain the big words.
Feminism becomes obsolete when women and men are treated equally and with equal privilege, something you very clearly do not understand.
They do, though. What are the exact conditions that would meet the requirement of women being "treated equally and with equal privilege"?
never forget women lie a lot telling they are sexually harassed cause they think it makes them more attractive. This is something I have experienced and even being accused of false stuff in order to cause guilt and with that control on the men. So another conclusion could be women lie more on average. Or are more evil on average.
no one has the right to not be offended.
You're correct that there are male feminists. But for this group their agenda falls almost exactly in line with other social justice warriors and progressives, which is more about LGBT rights than women's rights anymore.
There's a difference between sexual harassment and crying because you have tits and don't want people attracted to you yet want to still be treated special for having them.
One is harassment, one is complete hypocritical bullshit.
Basically, you want to shut your eyes and be offensive without caring about the trail of damage you leave behind you? Smashing. Off you go.
Being offended is a choice.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
SJWs are the new, persistent, invasive, and incredibly annoying trolls (I don't doubt other trolls have stated mimicking their behavior just to annoy others, not to advocate the position). But I would still say people who d0x others and post SSNs, addresses, and spam death threats are the ultimate trolls. That said, SJWs could easily fall into that category, but it's not mutually exclusive to them.
You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/...
I forget the exact quote but it is something like show me a man of absolute conviction or show me a man of absolute faith and I'll show you the most dangerous man in the world.
Both lines of thinking in the parent are ridiculous
Wow.. The writer of this article is Jake Swearingen. Not James Swearingen.
Riiigggghhhhhttttt.....
There are no females, merely males who are too weak in their maleness to grow genitalia, amirite?
It was definitely presented as a tool to be used. They did not even come up with this stuff, these techniques were well-known long before the Internet.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Smashing. Off you go."
Way to miss the point, moron.
"I can't wait to read some hate-filled slashdotter's pathetic tirade against women. Have at it, chaps."
What a twisted, perverted, voyeur you are. You must be one of these "social justice warriors" I've been hearing about. Throw away your fedora hat, hipster douchebag.
You can ask that, but you won't get a sensible answer. What will happen instead is that they pick some other part of your post, only respond to that, and call you a misogynist, racist, or some other name. Or they'll give a generic like "When full equality has been achieved and women aren't harassed anymore. Are you opposed to equal treatment and ending harassment? Why do you hate women?" You can't even win if you are a member of the minority they are pretending to help; they'll just say "The reason you disagree with me is because society has treated you so badly that you have internalized all this self-hatred, so in addition to suffering over harm, you have clearly also suffered psychological harm."
You need to recognize that these people have spent their whole lives on honing their propaganda and debating skills; that's what political science and social science majors do. They plan strategy, they have entire books about how to raise an issue, discredit opponents, and get things done. They know every single point and strategy you might use and how to respond to it most effectively. They don't have to be logical or truthful, they just have to score debating points. And that's all it takes for them to succeed in politics and get lots of donations to their causes. And money and power is what this ultimately about: this is how they make a living and succeed.
These people are professionals. As a technology person, you have about as much chance of success against them as challenging a heavyweight champion to a boxing match.
How do we stop violent murders? Death penalty. I don'ty. I use to hate pedophiles and death wish every single of them onion heads. Now I hate trolls because some are fucking my epistolary relationship with a very sweet girl. I knwo who the guys are. And I hope they know why they fear stepping ouy their houses. The hee. One one them use to buy crack near my house. Figure out what can be done with a water ballon like that! :D _@
Wasn't troll supposed to mean someone that writes controversial or inflamatory things (even if they don't really believe them) just to get other people debating (fighting) about it so they can sit back and watch the fireworks. Now it's cyber bullies and people who harass women online. It sounds like the old/new definitions of hacker. This new English, it changes faster than Double Talk!
Trolls come from an old story where a guys dated an undesidred woman. In fact, trhe association of this particular woman to the folklore creature by her given estereotype turned the guy in the trolÃfll itself. The women didn't helped at atl,l, but cmon, I already dated a girl who I didn't appreciated her body size, bute cince she was honest saying that she was not what I would expect, I gave her a very good date. I pitty for the chocolates I tried giving her, they melted and I didn't eat'em. But since that night, voodoo/gothic/magic/girls are the best, and trolls just make this endless carnival of madness more magically funny.Enjoy the ride and long live to the force which give us pride.
Actually, trolls are objectively better than most.
I think you mean "superior to", because "better than" is based on a judgement by others. You could make an objective judgement based on numbers of some sort, there.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Since women found about 9gag and started to participate in making memes it definitely got worse.
I didn't think it was possible for 9gag to get worse.
It never ends. Grow a fucking backbone. Sometimes things will offend you. Sometime people say mean things to you. Deal with it!
I wouldn't be surprised if many slashdotters who are women are avoiding reading the comments (a lot of the comments on posts having to do with gender dynamics have been awfully toxic recently) or are reluctant to post, but there are quite a few of us around, y'know?
SNERTS. SNERTS= Snot-nosed, egotistical, rude, twits.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Especially with you egging them on. Nice job, troll! *thumbs-up*
Brought to you by the people who want to sell censorship to the public. Looks like it's going to work. Fascism is a peoples movement.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
>So fuck 'em.
If anyone were willing to, it might give the trolls better things to do than be antagonistic dipshits online...
I'm sorry unless you feel in fear of your physical safety or life just ignore it and go about your business. Toughen up and move on.
These days you cannot be nice without being accused of harassment, I have been reprimanded for holding open a door and saying that a co workers new hair style looked nice. These are things that I do all the time because I was brought up to hold open doors and notice changes.
Do point out the exaggeration.
[FUCK BETA]
The OP has a point, unfortunately.
Modern feminism lacks a common goal like the earlier waves did. There are so many dissenting opinions all under the umbrella of feminism, many (most?) of which are not about getting equality.
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I've become very wary of 'feminism', or at least what it has mutated into.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Im betting women would love to switch from being sexually harassed and stalked to just being called names like dike. Come on man, what we men have to deal with is on a whole different level and men do it to your face as much as they do it online.
"Quote"In broad trends, the data show that men are more likely to experience name-calling and embarrassment, while young women are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment and stalking."End Quote"
Jack of all trades,master of none
What is the solution to powerful people who want to "solve" things they have not bothered to understand, because the power they have means they don't have to understand these things? This pattern seems to play out again and again on the Internet: security researchers rotting in political prisons for embarrassing AT&T, cartoonists convicted of paedophilia, the "right to be forgotten" and "mandatory data retention", real names on Google Plus, . . .
And "especially among women."
The neat thing about what the word "troll" has become is that everyone is one. It has become a socially acceptable ad hominem attack. God I love the internet.
So we have a survey showing that "one in four" women experience online harassment. Seems very similar to the long-debunked "one in five college women are sexually assaulted" number. But like the sexual-assault survey, bogosity won't stop it being crafted into another legal weapon against men.
We've had what? 60 years or so of studies in universities about how to advance certain issues but from what I can see they're not willing to stop with equality. No, it has to be more than equal because of the past crimes of long dead people that those who match their traits today are automatically guilty of by sharing the traits.
So, Animal Farm all over again with the "some are more equal than others" part.
Nor is it possible without shutting down the internet and/or removing the ability to be anonymous.
Also Troll != harassment. Some troll harass and others don't. Some harassers troll and others don't.
Basically, you want to shut your eyes and be offensive without caring about the trail of damage you leave behind you?
No, I want an internet where assholes like you don't get to define what is and isn't "offensive."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Somalia!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
And yet, anyone who says "treat women like people" gets labelled an SJW. The term is meaningless, saying "SJW" is about as irrelevant's and Rush's "feminazi", in that it riles up the haters but makes everyone else roll their eyes.
Yeah, it's basically become an Internet-only insult in the same vein as "hipster".
No more trolling going on in that medium!
It's not even worth responding to your post. You did not respond directly to any claims NotDrWho made. You did not provide counterarguments. Your response adds nothing to the discussion, and is in fact a personal attack. You are not asking for a clarification of any points, despite phrasing your personal attack as a question because you immediately dismiss the user. Your post is the most useless kind of post that anyone on the Internet can possibly make. It is worse than "I agree" or "I disagree" because you don't even present an opinion. I can infer that you disagree, but you didn't actually make that explicitly clear. There can be no response to you other than restating/clarifying an opinion, or to tell you to fuck off. In short, your post is literally a troll, and I have been baited by it. If you respond to this post (as I'm sure you will, likely claiming that I am a user from somewhere upthread) please be sure to state exactly what parts of this post you disagree with. Otherwise, kindly fuck off Britbong.
Fucko.
The difference is the internet is a group of private networks. You are not allowed to regulate speech. You can regulate harassment but courts have a very narrow view(as they should) of what constitutes harassment.
You can ask that, but you won't get a sensible answer. What will happen instead is that they pick some other part of your post, only respond to that, and call you a misogynist, racist, or some other name.
That's odd because that is what happens when I bring up a different viewpoint. All of a sudden I'm being dogpiled because I said 'dogpiled' and 'wtf did you mean about _that_!'. It's frustrating enough that I step away from the thread and forum.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
For evidence, see above. And probably below. And certainly the comments to pretty much every public/unmoderated forum post ever made, that happens to mention women or feminism in an even vaguely positive manner.
* Ob!NotAllGeeksPreemptiveReply: If you are not a hate-filled sexist, relax: that means this comment was not about you. Note that I said "Far, far too many geeks" not "Every geek".
* Ob!Flamebait/TrollModeratorsPreemptiveReply: How exactly is pointing out the content of the vast majority of your comments flamebait/trolling? So much for your "freedom of speech" arguments.
I bet 1 out of 4 women were just mad they were called a stupid selfish cunt?
All of a sudden calling you a "stupid selfish cunt" translates into "stalking and sexual harrassment".
Yep. that seems to be the case here.
The definition of harassment, at least where I live, is "unwanted sexual advances", meaning the distinction between flirting and harassment is purely based on subjective experience.
It was in the late eighties when someone pinned a single life sized autographed strip club poster in the packing barn of my father's farm.
It wasn't long before every inch of open wall was papered over --- and a low-key arms race ongoing to see who could come closest to the X-rated line, without crossing over.
There had always been kids about the place, we began hiring women who didn't know our family well and weren't in on the joke, which had long since stopped being funny, and for our wholesale customers and suppliers this was our place of business.
It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person's sex. Harassment can include ''sexual harassment'' or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.
Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a personâ(TM)s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.
Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.
Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
Sexual Harassment
Good luck trying to find a girlfriend without "harassing" anyone!
Like I said, "Loser."
Who visits slashdot.org?
The white people of Los Angeles is Full of Serial Killers I am not mistaken...
signed,
Troll on
What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.
Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where a person has a home address. Yet we have lots of crime, and it does not relate directly to anonymity.
The crusade has nothing to do with protecting women's rights. In fact I'll argue that it has nothing to do with catching people that are behaving badly toward women either. If you have doubts, answer why online predators and human trafficking are either the same or worse today (in scale) than say 20 years ago before all of the laws alleging to catch on-line predators.
Many of the laws claimed to protect children have had the exact opposite effect, of protecting criminals. Meanwhile innocent people with good intentions have been harmed by these same laws.
Since we can demonstrate that the laws won't change the situation, you should be asking who benefits if laws are passed.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
> Those places are much worse than, say, Slashdot, which has a much more balanced and fair moderation system that isn't as open to the abuse that the "social justice warriors" prefer to engage in.
I keep running into users being very honest in their liking of physical things, but not in physical things they dislike, while they're very honest about disliking behaviors that annoy them (facebook), and not so clear about behaviors they like. This seems to work to my advantage on ecommerce sites- I can get the numbers of people who wrote how much they liked a product (5 stars), and then look at a bad review to see whether the physical thing is unusable. If all they can say is they didn't like the color, (or if in the process of whining about how it didn't work they accidentally express their derpitude), I've got a good buy.
It's never worked so well on comments, though. The context mixes physical and intangible things, articles with user metainformation, so I don't know what to look at. The number of people who dis/like a comment, best known on reddit, is completely unuseful in this context. Raw rating of the articles was useful (early digg) until the metainformation got in the way and people started forming brigades to take down content they disagreed with. reddit responded by making it impossible to downvote an article below 0, which made it impossible to properly bury articles offensive to everyone, thus breaking the other half of the ability to tell what's worth "purchasing" with my time and what isn't.
If the only moderator here was the site owner whose strongest motivation was not wanting to get sued, I think we'd have pretty good free speech on this site, instead of the politically correct hivemind good-old-boys mod setup we must shovel through to get to anything useful, which is running on most of the forums left. Any owner deleting honest opinions would be routed around, as John Gilmore famously said.
I feel like we've taken a giant step back from the days of USENET, which weren't that good anyway.
When is the Deadwood movie going to happen?
The First Amendment's protection of speech was NOT designed to protect polite words everyone agrees with, because there is little reason to protect that. It was specifically intended to protect offensive speech from people who would get angry and butthurt about hearing something they don't like.
As others have stated, this has nothing to do with stopping some truly evil speech, this has to do with authoritarian governments that want to stamp out our rights. When people go way beyond speech, they should be arrested for actual crimes. If someone gets butthurt because I said something they don't like, they can fuck off.
Among the healthy and mature, there's no right "not to be offended"; not for men, and not for women. There is 100% equality here.
Such offense is subjective; every possible attempt to minimize it by law boils down to an unworthy suppression of freedom, something that is unhealthy for society no matter how you go about it.
Even when a particular mode of speech, or some consensual/personal action, is pretty much uniformly despised, it's far better to know who says, and therefore has motivation to say, or does, these terribly offensive things, than it is for society to repress these people and then jump up in stark surprise when they move from unseen and unheard to resentful action as a means of kicking back against said repression.
Speech, in many cases, serves as a moderately effective safety valve. You never want to close such a valve and walk away. Because you get this.
If something you look at offends you, look away. If something you hear offends you, stop listening. If something people do offends you, don't participate. Your subjective feelings of offense can never rise to the relevance required to legitimately regulate the behavior of others.
Until something breaks your bones, damages your property/finances, or impugns your reputation, or these things similarly directly affect those for whom you perform the role of parent or guardian, the correct action is to turn to managing your own sensibilities -- rather than trying to control other people's actions.
Now, as to the immature and incompetent, in particular, children: Parents and guardians have a dual responsibility here. In order to be able to execute that responsibility, your home should be a safe haven in the sense of you being able to completely control who, and what information, gets in, and when they get in, and when they must leave. Society owes it to you to see to it that this capacity is readily available to you. Your home should indeed be your castle. To the extent it isn't, society has either failed you, or you have failed your charges. Schools and/or any other situation requiring attendence must likewise be supportive and safe, or society has lost its legitimate right to force your children to attend.
Immaturity:
On the one hand, it is your responsibility to see to it that your charges are not bullying, generally or specifically being an asshole to others. You are responsible for inculcating the understanding that immature and/or insufficiently abled minds can be taken to, and beyond, the brink by bullying, and then you must see to it that this understanding translates into reasonable behavior by your charges (which, by the way, will work to reduce many types of essentially pointless trolling later on.)
On the other, it is also your responsibility to see to it that your charges are not being bullied. You should know where your charges hang out, who they hang with, what the environment is like, and you should step in when that environment, in your estimation, becomes unhealthy. Stepping in may involve a note to someone else's parent or guardian, removing your charge from the harmful environment, or simply providing sufficient perspective so that the behavior is seen in the light of failure of the perpetrator, rather than any kind of lessening of the value or self-image of the target.
Incompetence:
If your charge cannot be taught to healthily handle the speech, displays, or consensual actions of others, then it is your job to see to it that they are not exposed to those things. It is not society's responsibility to turn the entire planet into a padded room for your charge. If you need a padded room, you should build one of your own.
For every story I have heard so far of horrible consequences to bullying, my reaction has been "Where were the parents during all this?"
And I have to ask: If your charges are not being raised with healthy self-images and a strong sense of self, what the fuck ar
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Total garbage. This is not a women's issue. This is an issue for both men and women. Portraying this as a women's issue is degrading to both men and women. The reality is trolls attack people, of all sexes.
No troll every truly lives, if they did they wouldn't be a troll, simple *stupid Meerkat squeak noise*
But you're going to get a hate-filled tirade against uneducated, bigoted Brits like yourself. Crawl back into the deep dark hole you came from.
What the hell is a barely literate musician like you doing on a tech site anyway?
I am posting as AC because I killed my login on Slashdot in protest over the use of the Beta UI, which among other things is not as accessable as the ikd one.
I think that the best way to deal with trolls is to move their comment to a separate subthread and use some quoting to highlight what they said and pointedly, directly respond. Now you cant do something on most sites because they are blogs. The strictly linear form of most blogs gives the troll and the topic hijacker inordinate power to disrupt a conversation. The have particular power on sites like Facebook where you are forced to read in order everybody's comments. Conversation owners need to power to move problem posts off onto side threads. Some of the trolling on sites like Facebook is actually the product of the design. Trolls are bullies and one of the biggest inducements to them is to informally police conversations they are interested in for OT posts. They have that power because Facebook's format is inflexible. Tgis may be a trait of most blogs on the Internet.
The Pew research also showed that men receive much more harassment and abuse than women but it sure is not marketed that way.
Do explain how this is not to be interpreted as "I want to be offensive and I don't care".
[FUCK BETA]
having been attacked and in a very nasty and threatening way i can understand why people are afraid these people who find it fun to troll others have no place on the web its time to clip their wings
Sending death threats to women who "dare" to play games or create games, that's ok?
I see a lot of people dancing to the tune of this narrative, that gamers are nothing but a bunch of violent misogynists trying to lynch women out of gaming, and nobody seems to smell the crock of shit. The scandal involved half a dozen people and was surely (and perhaps rightly) as humiliating to the men involved as it was to Quinn, yet all the focus is on how frightened and oppressed she is at the hands of savage men. Which brings me to my next point,
Oh one of them slept with a journalist, something evil of course that men would never ever do.
Even if Quinn was a male that was under suspicion of the things involved in that scandal people would be angry. Few level headed people would say that death threats are an appropriate response but realistically, when a large group of people are angry about something, especially something that seems unjust or unpunished, death threats are not unheard of. Celebrities of all genders have been subject to them. But a twisted narrative needs to be drilled into everyone's minds in order for SJWs to leverage power out of any of this, hence why they try to paint as much as they can as broadly as they can with the brushes of "rape" or "misogyny".
Well, I'd say that ANYONE who resorts to vicious threats or attacks should not be regarded highly and should not be allowed on those online communities. No matter WHAT they are arguing for. With regard to the GamerGate thing, it looks like there's been a lot of viciousness from BOTH sides of the argument, which is a crying shame as there are serious underlying concerns which do deserve to be dealt with.
And that resorting to force means that the LEGITIMATE points you raise then go ignored. And with enough of that belligerency, real and serious issues with society get covered up and go unaddressed, meaning this technique is actually counterproductive to the stated goal. Which means that we need serious people to take up those real and serious issues and tackle them in a manner that does not involve that kind of belligerent approach, but a more civilized one. Gamergate raises very real issues about sexism, but the use of out-and-out bullying and harassment -- by BOTH sides -- is going to do no justice to those issues.
...And maybe that's where we should start fighting them. They're hardly fighting for social justice if they're threatening, abusing, or otherwise coercing other people to shut up for fear of their lives or their families'. I don't care if they're trying to save the baby seals from slaughter or men's comfy overprivileged world from the perils of feminism. They're not fighting for social justice they are, as you put it, just another asshole in a power struggle. We need a better name for these slimebags.
Web Trolls Winning As Incivility Increases. Posted by on Friday August 15, 2014 : The Internet may be losing the war against trolls. At the very least, it isn't winning. And unless social networks, media sites and governments come up with some innovative way of defeating online troublemakers, the digital world will never be free of the trolls' collective sway. That's the dismal judgment of the handful of scholars who study the broad category of online incivility known as trolling, a problem whose scope is not clear, but whose victims keep mounting. "As long as the Internet keeps operating according to a click-based economy, trolls will maybe not win, but they will always be present," said Whitney Phillips, a lecturer at Humboldt State University and the author of This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things, a forthcoming book about her years of studying bad behavior online. "The faster that the whole media system goes, the more trolls have a foothold to stand on. They are perfectly calibrated to exploit the way media is disseminated these days." http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
The solution in my opinion would be stopping internet pornography websites,education to our childrens,no drugs or alcohol.
Trying to teach them how to live natural, at a country side. This is all a big lie. The internet is evolving and the world changes badly every day. We can't stop this, but it's controlling our children. All the videoclips of the songs on youtube are changing them badly,all the music messages.
You can't grow a child, then a generation if their brain is being washed every day.
Tractari Auto Iasi
That's simple free speech. Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up. You get a spectrum, not a single viewpoint unless it is a single person view. Feminism is not a 1 person movement, ergo. The only response to speech is speech, and criticizing other people's speech tends to open you up to the same.
This is like criticizing that two people who are are both declared $view, whether that is pro feminism or democrat or geek, are wrong because their opinions disagree, simply because they both still support something - such as equality, or freedom, or being anti-gaming corruption.
You couldn't be more wrong in your understanding because you basically created a strawman and pointed to it. I suggest you read as below.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/10...
"The surgeon general states that half of all people will eventually die."
The other half will live forever.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
*half of all people who smoke
Efficiently shot myself in the foot there. Way to go, me.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Boiling down cyber human predation to largely mean sexual harassment is turning understanding on it's head. So serious in terms of humanity. It's gone corporate man; Apple, HP, Google, everybody owned. Government, lawyers fell at the gate. No more police power. Incarceration is inhumane. A sick joke. Law enabled a lot more crime against humanity than it stopped. On top of that, the police are too loud and proud to auction your possessions after they throw you in jail. It looks really bad.
Feminism has the same common goal it always has, and people having differing opinions is simply what makes that up.
This is the part that you've got wrong.
'Feminism' used to be, in an abstract sense, fighting for equality. Modern feminism is no longer limited by that definition and several factions, for lack of a better word, seek to go much further beyond that.
No strawman either, I'd suggest you read up on what that actually means before you throw it around.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
But it has JUST been said that... : http://tech.slashdot.org/story...