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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'"
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/...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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%).
Not different opinions on a discussion forum! Well I'm certainly glad you are here to set the story straight by labeling other opinions as the problem.
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
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.
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.
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.
Very typical SJW troll tactic. Exaggerate his position to the extreme and then *pretend* you knew that was what he meant. Smashing.
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
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.
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.
Friggin' hilarious.
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.
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.
And the names of the people mentioned in the article both have odd names.
Citron = Lemon in Swedish.
At least for someone Swedish it's hard to take this article entirely serious.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
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.
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.
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
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!”
sexual harassment is any unwanted sexual advances or comments. like, hay babe great ass, can be sexual harassment.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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.
That's a misunderstanding. that's a whole lever of different.
Jack of all trades,master of none
how do we know what the babe with the hot ass considers unwanted beforehand?
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
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.
Are you really asking that question because you don't really know the answer or because you don't really like the answer? Im guessing a stripper who is at work would expect that to be said to her. But how about the women going about her own business? You dont know.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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!
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?
Point is people laying down absolute rules for the world between their ears can be wrong in reality.
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.
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.
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]
And your world without rules and boundaries would be? We already have prisons full of people who think they can do just what the hell they want.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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.
I did not advocate nor make any statement about not having rules or not having boundaries, instead made one of "absolute rules"
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
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...