Slashdot Mirror
Inside the Business of Online Reputation Spin
The Guardian has a long, thought-provoking piece (it's an excerpt from an upcoming book) on the way that online PR works, when individuals or organizations pay online spin doctors to change the way they're perceived online. Embarrassing photos, ill-considered social media posts, even quips that have ended up geting the speaker into hot water, can all be crowded out, even if not actually expunged, by injecting lots of innocuous information, photos, and other bits of information. That crowding out seems to be the reputation managers' prime tactic. Besides a brush of his own with identity theft (or at least unwanted borrowing), the author spoke at length with both Adria Richards and "Hank"; both of whom ended up losing their jobs in the aftermath of what became known as Donglegate, after Richards tweeted about jokes that she overheard Hank and another developer share at PyCon 2013.
This method works well to give privacy to an individual as well. If there's enough garbage information out there to effectively make it impossible to figure out truth from fact, then it's easy enough to hide in plain google site.
To influence a community run place like wikipedia ? Even though we have seen this happen it has not lasted for long .
You know she is STILL out there spewing hate and racism? I checked her twitter page out after being reminded of who she was a few months back and shes still out there saying the same things that got her in trouble the first time.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wikipedia carries a great deal of bad and misleading information, as well as attacks and cover-ups. The editing (by which I mean arbitrary, supervision-free, largely random and often outright wrong top-down meddling with content) is nothing short of terrible. What keeps Wikipedia going is the users. What keeps setting it back is the meddling from above. Nothing has ever managed to keep misinformation out of it -- in either direction. That said, Wikipedia has long since mutated from its optimum form -- actually open -- into a pseudo-intellectual grandstand for its operators, replete with locked pages carrying their opinions to the masses.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
EveryDamnBody is an "ist" somehow and in someway. i hate Duke and their coach and the basketball team. but that's just me.
A google search of Lindsey Stone shows the images that she wanted to suppress, and lots of stories about her experience with her bad reputation.
It looks like anything done by reputation.com has been washed away by the more recent stories about her.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
And no one should forget that she was also caught making at least one dick joke that same week:
http://media.tumblr.com/ed5aea...
I personally don't consider any of the jokes sexist, but they absolutely make her a hypocrite.
It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on?
That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe. Going back to the 17th century (before there even was a "this country"), the colonies were making laws against wife-beating. I can't find the link now, but there are images of newspaper announcements of men being publicly whipped for doing so.
The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren?
Actually, according to "Child Maltreatment 2012" (US Dept. of Health and Human Services - PDF Warning), the numbers pretty strongly indicate that the opposite is true: among biological parents, mothers are about 2x as likely as fathers to be perpetrators of child abuse, and among non-parents, categories that are separated by gender go to females as well. "Partner of Parent (Male)" does beat "Partner of Parent (Female)", though, at 2.3% vs 0.3%, so if you're limiting the population to just children abused by stepfathers, what you said is not exactly false.
Making believable bad information go away is hard. You could fix your problems by doing the reputation.com approach of posting lots of credible good information (which can help some), or you could drown it out in non-credible bad stuff. You don't want the real *chan crowd mad at you, but enough posts from known 7chan trolls about your mother being a hamster and your father smelling like elderberries and photoshopped pictures of you doing evil things with hamsters and elderberries can make it hard to find the time you actually said something stupid in public, especially if you angered the actual conspiracy of elderberry fans.
That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe.
As long as it's still going on, and still being gotten away with, it's more socially acceptable than you think it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's still going on in both directions. Domestic violence is instigated by both sexes at Similar Rates (PDF warning again. SAVE handout that contains citations). Enforcement, however, is not, thanks to the broken-by-design Deluth Model, sexually biased "primary aggressor policies", and social pressure against men reporting being hit.
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
Sure, I agree with that. But again, where does it come from? How do you compare it with the typically much more serious abuse perpetrated by males against females? Obviously, it's comparable, but you can't just consider numbers. And while I don't believe that abuse only exists when it's pervasive (I've had it up to my ears with that bullshit about how it's only sexism when it's men doing it) I also believe that it is fundamentally different.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
HOW is it fundamentally different? What's the magic element that makes one "not as bad" as the other?
My knee is not jerking, and I honestly expect better from you than that (normally I don't bother engaging on the internet anymore). I'm not misreading what you're saying, I'm inquiring about your reasoning.
You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness? The incidents occur at similar rates, and one of them *is* socially acceptable, but it's the opposite of your original implication.
My knee is not jerking,
Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?
You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness?
It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser. It's the "culture of abuse" that gets pooh-poohed all the time. Except, of course, it's true. It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide. And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.
As I said, it's about classic overcorrection. People lash out. It's not rational.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's not rational.
That's true, you looked at the numbers and either ignored them, or drew the opposite conclusion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?
The fact that you didn't write the relevant bit, so that I had to ask for more information.
It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser.
Since you've moved the goalposts from "physical abuse" to "systemically treated as lesser" without providing any examples of the latter, I'm going to limit the context of my response to the former.
In what sense? In the sense that they are unable to make decisions on whether or not to strike someone physically stronger than they are ("primary aggressor" policies), less capable of defending themselves and thus need stronger protection of the law and society (gender-biased "domestic violence" legislation, most DV shelters and social programs being women-only)? In the sense that they're unable to care for their children alone, despite being the ones with decision-making power on the subject?
All of these things show a certain gender-bias, that's true, and they're all the result of false observations like the ones you originally made in your post, and supported or even demanded by those claiming that they counter said "oppression."
And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.
Widespread social response would disagree with you. A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.
In a situation like that, it's really hard to take claims of women being valued "lesser" at face value.
It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide
When you aggregate the whole gamut of "most societies worldwide", you get a hell of a skewed picture. Propagating disinformation, myths, and outright lies in the Western world isn't going to do jack to help in those societies where women DO have legitimate complaints of oppression.
In the developed world, where all of these bogus statistics, pseudo-sociological screeds, and PC Thought Police are perpetually bounced around, though, is another matter. When measured on gender-lines, the "privileges" of males is a proper subset of that of females. Calling that "oppression" is a real stretch.
It makes sense, when you apply a moment of rational thought. Removing the genders from the equation will probably make that easier for most:
Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back. Doesn't mean you didn't start the fight, and should probably be considered when deciding whether or not it's a good idea in the first place (it usually isn't).
However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.
That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.
You're probably right. I'm just disappointed that I gave him/her too much credit.
Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."
That certainly is a problem, and needs to be dealt with. The problem is that it is impossible to have any kind of dialogue because even though both sides basically agree about this point (yes, feminists are against female on male violence as well) they are do far apart it's like ships passing in the night and screaming at each other.
Feminists think that sexism is an issue and should be called out. Men's Rights groups think that calling out sexism is trying to censor perfectly acceptable behaviour and is in itself sexist, and an example of women wanting special treatment. If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts. Call attention to the issue, but drop the "...and this is another example of femianzis cutting men's balls off" bit from the end and they will see results.
Ironically the most watched video on this issue on YouTube was posted by a feminist leaning group.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Just out of curiosity, what talk shows have so many women who disfigured a man and got away with it that you can make meaningful statistics about such appearances?
Also, while "slapping someone around" is not as serious as a fisthfight as far as medical consequences go, the implications are actually far nastier. It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else. Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally. People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.
Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.
Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally
Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.
People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.
I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.
Sometimes, the only way to deal with a stubborn, intractable person who refuses to see reason is to just say "shut up, you stupid bitch".
So, is that how you deal with women?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
Half of population are below median intelligence. Bullies are no exception.
I'm sorry to hear that. Let's hope you get better soon.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Nope, the expectation of proportionality is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Once violence is initiated, the original victim has the legal right (in all civilized countries) to defend oneself by stopping the threat violence. That always requires an escalation.
How does that always require an escalation? A person can threaten you with a knife while you're out around the BBQ and you can run inside and lock them out of the house, for example.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?
You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.
Oh yes, we can always just run away and let the bully have everything they want. Or, we can stand up for ourselves which requires an escalation.
I'll rephrase... Winning always requires an escalation. Losing just requires submission to bullies.
or was reversed by the guardian article - 23 out of the 26 first google-image searches now show me that hillarious/offending picture. in the case of adria richards - i think it's quite ironic that her getting hank fired monumentally backfired. they both lost a lot because of her overreacting, but she clearly got it worse. which seems quite fair to me.