Slashdot Mirror
A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds (fastcompany.com)
That shocking statistic comes from a study conducted by Amnesty International and AI software startup Element AI. From a report: In the study, called Troll Patrol, Amnesty International and Element AI looked at data from 288,000 tweets sent to 778 female politicians and journalists in the U.S. and U.K. in 2017. Using machine learning on the data, the group then extrapolated just how wide-ranging abuse toward women is on Twitter. The result: 1.1 million abusive or problematic tweets were sent to the women in the study during the year -- that's one abusive or problematic tweet every 30 seconds. And it's even worse for women of color -- and especially black women -- who were targeted more frequently than white women.
that criticism is trolling.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
How many men are abused or sent problematic tweets on twitter.
Why limit research to one segment to create a self confirming headline?
But most of those were for Hillary. And she deserves every one.
No comparison for the same happening to male politicians?
Without a meaningful baseline to compare against, what does the stat mean? (from what I've read, they didn't bother measuring the abuse frequency against male tweeters - sort of the same as when it's mentioned the appalling statistic that 10,000 women committed suicide in 2016 whilst deliberately neglecting to mention that 35,000 men committed suicide the same year)
Not a peep about how many abusive tweets were sent to men, using the same criteria.
Why would that be, exactly? Is it because women are the weaker sex, and hence need to be protected from this sort of thing, whereas men are stronger and hence don't need such protection?
Or is it that nobody gives a shit about men, whether they are stronger or not?
Or maybe men get WAY MORE abuse on twitter, but pointing that out won't substantiate the desired narrative?
Some meany hurt their feelings!
Typical "intersectional" reporting. What is the base rate of abuse? Always be suspicious of people who quote absolute statistics. If you look at the research on this, you find that men are abused more than women, and that when a woman receives abuse, it is more likely to be from another woman. But the facts don't suit the narrative of the poor innocent woman being persecuted by the evil mens. PATHETIC.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Does the female version of the app come with rockem sockem robots attached? You're on a public platform where people's thoughts are brought to you unfiltered. I am surprised that only 1 in every 125000 messages is mean to a woman.
How about you ignore that 1 message and read the other 124999. Or like me, read none.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Do the 280 characters or less reach out and pull their hair and choke them?
They also pick high profile targets (Politicians and people of controversy.) Then wave a magic "machine learning" wand and assume all women are targeted in the same fashion, not just the loudmouth cunts.
Mostly because the whiners would be incinerated.
And what constitutes "abused"
You gotta get those numbers up. 98% of respondents abuse me on Twitter. I love the free real estate I occupy in their minds.
One every thirty seconds, if you believe the extrapolation they did with their AI. (Why AI instead of simple arithmetic?) Anyway, hmm. I bet there are more negative tweets about Trump than than only two per minute.
We do have a lot of negativity in our society. I'd like to discuss disagreement more civilly. Attempting to divide us men vs women, or cast females as victims, isn't going to bring us together and help make things more polite, or increase our desire to understand each other. It's just trying to stoke controversy.
They looked at 288,000 tweets and determined that there were 1.1 million abusive tweets? WTF.
In the twitterverse, only 1 abuse every 30 seconds?
Damn, I'm surprised how well mannered and respectful Twitter users are.
And have you measured the rate of verbal abuse to males by any chance? no?
Don't worry. I'm sure you will bring balanced and objective reporting. I can wait.
right here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Table-ized A.I.
I thought this was news for nerds,news that matters.
Iâ(TM)m not in the slightest bit surprised by this. While I find it useful to see the headlines posted, a convenient way to hear about some new things, the comments are invariably anal and childish. Abusing women fits perfectly with that mentality so, no surprise.
Target group: female Politicians and Journalists.
Not women, but specifically women who take public stances on a range of controversial issues, for a living. AKA Public Figures.
Sample Size: 778 US and UK citizens.
Less than 1,000. Out of 10.86 million active daily users. Half of which are statistically likely to be female as well. So 5.4 million roughly. This is a sample size of less than 0.00025%. Listerine leaves more germs behind than this study's sample size compared to the whole.
But that is actually okay, because in the actual article there is a disclaimer: "Note: This analysis is specific to the group of women in the study and would likely differ if applied to other professions, countries or the wider population."
So, they know its shit research AND sensationalist journalism. And they print it anyways. Nice. Oh wait, maybe there is something else involved...
"Online abuse against women on this scale should not and does not have to exist on social media platforms. Companies like Twitter have a responsibility to respect human rights, which means ensuring that women using the platform are able to express themselves freely and without fear."
Oh, Twitter should be the thought police! My bad, I thought this was about respecting human rights, like the ability to say whatever the hell you want to. I think we call that... Freedom... of Speech. You don't have to listen, but you can't shut me up. Fight me with facts, bring reality to the table to try and change me, sure. But this... well, this is just saying women are weak and need protecting from evil words by our beneficent Technology Overlords. Its a trash study with a disgusting agenda behind it. Troll Patrol, what an incredibly appropriate name!
I'm called nasty names on Twitter all the time - I just had a random troll drop in to start sassing me not ten minutes ago - but apparently the abuse directed at me doesn't matter because I don't have a vagina. Really makes you think, doesn't it?
I just looked at the published methodology.
I detect some issues with their methodology. Definitions of what constitute "abusive" or "problematic" tweets are explained in Appendix E.
Their explanations of the categories do not seem very precise. They are vague enough to include lots of edge-cases. Their examples are clear enough, but a clear example does not exonerate a vague criterion. (Hypothetical example: "I am going to murder you tomorrow" is certainly an example of abusive and threatening speech... but what else is in included as threating and abusive speech? Counterexamples are also necessary, else "I hate that rabbit in the field behind your house" might also be considered abusive.)
But more to the point, a full 55% of the tweets they flag as "abusive content" fall under the category of "other"... and that's a huge red flag.
They describe "other" thus: There will be some tweets that fall under the âother categoryâ(TM) that are problematic and/or abusive. For example, statements that target a userâ(TM)s disability, be it physical or mental, or content that attacks a womanâ(TM)s nationality, health status, legal status, employment, etc.
Uh... yeah. "Some" is 55%. And not only is this one the majority, it is a particularly vague definition. For example, if someone replies to an irate tweet, "Calm down! I know the Irish are famous for temper, but cool down a little!" is that "targeting a woman's nationality"? According to their description, it could be.
But here is the biggest problem with this study:
Nowhere did they compare this to any other groups. They singled out famous women and women in politics, but they didn't compare against famous men and men in politics.
And since there is no such comparison, it's all pretty much meaningless.
What if famous men and men in politics are "abused" on Twitter every 31 seconds? Or every 28 seconds?
Without that knowledge, does the study really say anything other than "the subset of people we chose got 'abused' at this rate?"
So what? Nothing to compare it to makes it pretty much useless knowledge.
While what they say may be true,
1/2 were indian men asking for pics of bobs and vageen. 1/2 were their own alts talking to their political enemies.
They use any and all methods of communication to abuse others...
This article is very one sided, has zero information on men being abused, for all we know this 0.01% of what men get...
Also for all we know this is the result on one bot from one individual.
if you believe the extrapolation they did with their AI. (Why AI instead of simple arithmetic?)
It seems like they trained it to distinguish abusive from non-abusive tweets, using a relatively small dataset. Then they sent the AI out to classify at a much larger set of tweets on the internet.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes but the real question here is what did they do to deserve it? Sorry but if you're being "abused" on Twitter it's likely you did something to deserve it. The fact it's happening more frequently to "women of color" only serves to drive home this fact. If you want to find the most vile, racist, sexist tweets, just look to women of color. As a general rule They hate whites, Latinos, Jews, Asians and men in the most blatant and outrageous rants. Then wonder why people attack them, even other "women of color". If you stop being so ratchet others will stop attacking your ghetto uneducated positions.
where you pretend to be weak so that you may rule over others.
Ur allotted as much respect as anyone. Thats a nice gig though... Id milk it for all its worth. :)
[($)]
Look away from the screen every 30 seconds
... as BBS back in the dial-up days.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The study conducted by Amnesty International and Element AI should be ignored because the authors of the study designate any negative comment as an "abusive comment".
For example, all comments in a polite essay that successfully refutes claims of gender barriers in information technology would be designated by Amnesty International and Element AI as "abusive comments against women".
What is the real intent of Amnesty International and Element AI in producing this so-called study? Both organizations want to censor information.
Unsurprisingly, both organizations used Twitter as the vehicle for facilitating censorship. Twitter itself censors information.
In a previous century, Christian clergymen declared that factual statements from some scientists (e.g., Galileo Galilei) are offensive. The clergymen shouted, "Blasphemy! Heresy!" They used religious emotion to suppress the truth.
In the current century, Hispanics (and Africans) and their political accomplices declare that factual statements from some conservative populists (e.g., Ann Coulter) are offensive. Hispanics shout, "Bigotry! Racism! White Supremacy!" They use religious emotion to suppress the truth. (Consider one example of the truth.)
Upon hearing accusations of racism, Twitter promptly bans the writer (of the truth) and deletes his comments.
Suppressing the truth in the past or the present is unethical.
Deliberately censoring information is equivalent to deliberately spreading disinformation. Both techniques create a false impression of reality. Twitter is no better than the propaganda offices in Beijing and Moscow.
Amnesty International has now discredited itself as a human-rights organization.
Why is this group trying to spread lies? I have seen zero instances of abuse toward women in that site. Fake news
She shouldnâ(TM)t be on twitter
The disturbing part isn't that somebody published this absolutely idiotic study. (I won't go into why it is idiotic, since literally every other post has pointed out one or more serious flaws in the study-- rarely have I ever seen anything ripped to shreds quite this thoroughly). No, the disturbing part is that Amnesty International was involved. THIS is what Amnesty International is doing these days?
I mean I'm not an expert, but I always thought Amnesty International was one of the most respected of all human-rights organizations-- the sort of organization I would donate money to. Not any more.
The study conducted by Amnesty International and Element AI should be ignored because the authors of the study designate any negative comment as an "abusive comment".
For example, all comments in a polite essay that successfully refutes claims of gender barriers in information technology would be designated by Amnesty International and Element AI as "abusive comments against women".
What is the real intent of Amnesty International and Element AI in producing this so-called study? Both organizations want to censor information.
Unsurprisingly, both organizations used Twitter as the vehicle for facilitating censorship. Twitter itself censors information.
In a previous century, Christian clergymen declared that factual statements from some scientists (e.g., Galileo Galilei) are offensive. The clergymen shouted, "Blasphemy! Heresy!" They used religious emotion to suppress the truth.
In the current century, Hispanics (and Africans) and their political accomplices declare that factual statements from some conservative populists (e.g., Ann Coulter) are offensive. Hispanics shout, "Bigotry! Racism! White Supremacy!" They use religious emotion to suppress the truth. (Consider one example of the truth.)
Upon hearing accusations of racism, Twitter promptly bans the writer (of the truth) and deletes his comments.
Suppressing the truth in the past or the present is unethical.
Deliberately censoring information is equivalent to deliberately spreading disinformation. Both techniques create a false impression of reality. Twitter is no better than the propaganda offices in Beijing and Moscow.
Amnesty International has now discredited itself as a human-rights organization.
At what point does the skin of the human race become sooooooo thin that it will no longer stop Alpha Particles and the human race perishes from radiation poisoning?
And what constitutes "abused"
Saying anything I don’t like.
Amnesty International (AI) has morphed from an organization promoting human rights to an organzation promoting the policies of the alt-left.
AI now demands that all Western nations maintain "open borders", which is tantamount to national suicide. (There is more information about this issue.)
By contrast, Human Rights Watch (HRW) remains apolitical. HRW promotes only human rights.
The solution is simple: women should not be allowed on the Internet!
Problem solved, once and for all!
As many as it takes to abuse you
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I guess women either shouldn't use Twitter or limit their sessions to 29 seconds to avoid being abused.
#DeleteFacebook
A women bitch is abused on slashdot whore every 2 seconds. Slashdot is the center for you bitch sucking, whore mongering hang outs. Facebook NEVER abuses anyone and Google will replace God after death with eternal love.
Smoke yourself into stupidity.
When their significant other doesn't gift a Michael Kors handbag over the Christmas period?
Requiem for the American Dream
It's machine learning. So the researches trained the AI with what they think is "abusive" or "problematic". What would be really useful is to see one of the twitter feeds with the tweets they deem as problematic or abusive flagged as such. Or just click a button and take us to a random one of the million abusive or problematic tweets so we could see what they're talking about. What I saw looking through those pages were just two sample images with a lot of content blocked out. Show us the data, machine learning doesn't mean squat unless you know exactly how they were trained.
So this is not a problem unless it's worse than when compared to a particular population? Using a criterion you set?
For example, the abuse heaped on black female politicians appalls me, irrespective of whether it's worse or lesser than for other populations. It appalls me to the point where I support the campaign for Twitter to take action. I cannot see a reason why protracted vilification ought to be tacitly endorsed.
Bingo! Can't say anything that might upset someone's tender sensibilities. And what definition of "abuse" did they use in their study? And while they extrapolating their results did they take into consideration that some of the "abuse" targeting women were just responses to the women who instigated the "abuse"? And did they identify the gender of the person hurling the "abuse" at women?
A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds
And a Trump voter ever 30 milliseconds. So what else is new?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
and found that we were doing pretty good until the last year when something happened. slash dot became it little weirder // was it me?
can we deal with something for serious like how many comments in all of github or sourceforge are sexist? and if so, towards whom?
That's 2880 times a day. I bet she's getting real tired of it.
So called "abuse" against black female politicians should not be singled out as a "problem" unless they are receiving significantly more "abuse" than other politicians. Otherwise, the actual "problem" is "politicians are receiving abuse".
However none of this is "abuse", it is negative comments about someone. Who remembers the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"?
Also worth considering is that politicians are by their very nature controversial public figures that will attract negative comments. There are negative comments made about donald trump every day, he's neither black nor female. Negative comments are made about hillary clinton too and she's not black. Infact donald trump probably receives far more hostile comments and empty threats than any other politician today and yet he's not crying about it like a baby.
If you want to be a public figure, and especially go into politics you can expect that people will disagree with you and even hate you. If you don't like that, choose a different career.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
This is pure BS on so many levels. Twitter is a SJW safe place where the mods can and will permanently ban you for being too white, christian, straight, male or for simply criticizing any leftwinger snowflake. Criticism is NOT abuse.
We need to create a new, safe-space version of Twitter for women, where they can safely post the things nobody cares about.
We'll call it Twatter.
We just need to get some men involved in order to actually get the ball rolling. You know, like with everything else that ever gets done.
End the sufferage of women!
"Using a criterion you set?"
Well yes, ultimately we each set the criterion by which we define a problem. Did you think I'd let you set it for me?
In any case, we can hardly evaluate if their criteria are valid if they don't define them and therefore must assume they are not.
Baseline: Outside of twitter, in real life, 39 men are killed (homicide records) every hour (including countries where we can get statistics, 80% of victims are male).
Suddenly it doesn't sound so bad that someone is calling women with nasty names on twitter.
I dare bet the AI wasn't much better than `if tweet contains any of these words, it's abusive`.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
29 seconds too long if you ask me. If you can't stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.
I got this figure by extrapolating from this particular study.
"So called "abuse" against black female politicians should not be singled out as a "problem" unless they are receiving significantly more "abuse" than other politicians. Otherwise, the actual "problem" is "politicians are receiving abuse"."
Bullshit. Stupid knows no color or gender. Being a black female does not make one immune to constant criticism if they're f'ing stupid. See: Maxine Waters, Shelia Jackson Lee. Both could be white males and they'd still be objects of ridicule.
It seems odd that a reputable study would not measure that as a baseline. Women are probably abused more because trolls think they are more likely to get a reaction. But I run a small political website and spend a lot of time deleting comments critiquing my anatomy or suggesting I engage in unnatural relations with POTUS. A healthy mixture of right wing and left wing trolls as far as I can tell. So there is a lot of trash on Internet regardless of who you are.
If I were abused every 30 seconds, I'd leave.
What the absolute fuck has this site come to? If someone went back in time and told cmdrtaco what was to become of his beloved tech news aggregator after his departure, I wonder if he would have believed them? This place might as well not exist anymore; it is nothing more than a cash cow to grab ad revenue by posting the most obviously inflammatory bollocks its moderators can think of. Whoever posted this must have cum in their pants at just the mere thought of all those ad impressions. Fuck me, what a travesty. I'd say the new owners ought to be ashamed of themselves but they either don't know what shame is, or it's something they enjoy feeling. I've half a feeling that they even own those dopey nazi ascii posting bots as well; anything to make a dollar, the dirty cunts.
Element AI looked at data from 288,000 tweets sent to 778 female politicians and journalists in the U.S.
LOL
the group then extrapolated
ROFL
Did you know 300 million "cyber attacks" are conducted against various US TLAs per DAY?
If this poor woman is being abused every 30 seconds, why doesn't she just change her Twitter handle? Maybe to something more male sounding?
I mean, really?! This isn't rocket surgery, people! Sheesh!!
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
And men get hateful tweets every second? Why is it news when women are the victims and silenced and ridiculed when it's men.
...she's being abused.
When a men is criticized on Tweeter his privilege is being checked.....
...I can't believe she hasn't closed her account yet...
...we poor men do get abused too! Buhuhuuuu!
Look, guys. You're so disgusting, I'm sometimes ashamed to be a man too. If you can't (or don't want to) see that our current society is biased against women (and worse against LGBTI), then shut the fuck up.
You're embarrasing.
Make a version of invite only social media just for woman?
Make all men move to the dark web?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
That stat sounds incredibly low. The amount of shit and abuse on all social platforms for all users is insane. What that suggests to me is maybe Woman are not as abused as men on twitter?
How is it even possible to be "abused on twitter"??? What the fuck happened to sticks and stones and all that? I swear, this is the most delicate generation in history that written on words on social media now constitute "abuse"... and an honest disservice to all the victims of actual abuse in the real world that their suffering is being coopted by snowflakes on social media who get hurt by words.
How much abuse was from other women?
Only the losers attack women on twitter. I guess they were too busy learning about their special parts in grammar school and forgot to to attend the grammar part
Good, I'm going to post it to /pol/ where we can fisk and make fun of it. Snowflakes melting is always a popular topic.
How frequently is a feminist raped in Twitter? I suspect it's as frequent as she calls it.
Donâ(TM)t use Twitter
Q. What does "abused" mean:
A. disagreeing with her
Q. Who's doing the actual abuse on Twitter:
A. women
Q. Who gets more actual abuse, men or women?
A. Men
Q. Who complains about it to get sympathy?
A. Women
Q. Who do the media care about?
A. Women
Q. Who likes reading scare stories about terrible men?
A. Women
Q. Who do the media not give a fly shit about - other than a convenient object of hate?
A. Men
Lesson for all you simpering male feminists. Twitter is practically made for women to vent their worst impulses. Anonymous. Switch accounts. No repercussions.
The biggest gold standard studies show it clearly.
How is someone talking jackshit on twitter (may it be about a man or woman) abuse? Unless you are overly sensitive or self conscious, just simply ignore the a-hole and problem solved, nothing to worry about.
They explain their methodology and there is actually a textbox you can put your own test tweets into and it will give you an analysis and "problematic" score. It's right near the bottom of the page.
As for a the GP's question, they are not comparing to anything external. The study isn't making the claim that it's worse for women, merely that women get a now quantified amount of abuse and that it affects certain sub-groups more than others (women of colour, women with left leaning views/politics).
As a general point if men were getting as much or even more abuse, it wouldn't make any difference. Also studying how it affects women is helpful for men being abused too, as often the solutions are similar for both.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Men are abused 30 times per second on Twitter.
Were journalists of both sexes abused more?
Were politicians of both sexes abused more?
More than what other group?
Which group deserved trolling more compared to what other group?
How was trolling defined? Was any criticism & all criticism of subversives considered as trolling?
Was a snowflake free control group used?
Was this study funded by California?
Who remembers the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"?
Invalidated once we realized emotional pain was real and accepted the impact of the trauma of bullying, harassment, and psychological torture.
Sorry, but words are power, and the pen is mightier than the sword. I can hurt millions with my words, but my hand would tire before I struck 100 people with a stick.
More importantly, how many of those abusive posts were written by women?
(and how many abusive posts did men receive?)
No sig today...
Why are all you people so fucking fragile about literally everything?
"Did they compare to abuse to men?" Why does that matter? If men are abused online every 30 seconds that doesn't make this normal. Stop trying to normalize shitty behavior.
Literally every time someone says "something bad happened to a woman" you idiots come out in droves, screaming "what about me, the mildly uncomfortable white man? Why isn't anyone looking at me?"
Not everything has to be about you, you bunch of fragile ego ninnies
No, white men don't get the same levels of abuse. Donald Trump gets lots of negative comments. He gets a fair about of abuse.
But he doesn't get "shut up you cracker penis, why don't you just use that mouth for the only thing it's good for, sucking a clit. You can't possibly run the country because men are so weak and useless"
Literally no men get that comment. But every woman has been told that multiple times by the time she's 20.
Get the difference yet?
I been raped by the internet.
... for using your real name on a generally anonymous internet.
Besides: I know of no one who know the basics about computers and the internet that uses Twitter for anything other than the occasional tip on some programmer meeting or a technical subject or problem they are currently working on. Which is just about exactly what Twitter was built for. Use it for anything else and the average IQ in the Twitter pseudo conversation drops sharply. See POTUS Trump for a good example.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
80% of males killed are men?
Ignoring your terrible wording, so what?
That has literally nothing to do with this. "You should be happy you aren't being killed" is probably not your intended message.
We don't have to cure homelessness to help a poor family. We don't have to cure cancer before we give someone a pain killer.
We don't have to solve all crime against men before we ask people to stop threatening to rape women over Twitter.
You're advocating that nothing should ever get better, because something else is bad. Do you realise how insane that is?
So, what about men? Probably the number is WAY higher!
Fucking times we live. Damn!
That's not even the biggest flaw with this bullshit study IMHO. They sampled two of the most, if not the most, controversial and public professions (i.e. politician and journalist) and extrapolated those to the rest of the population.
Poor woman. Maybe she should consider using some other social media?
When did this happen?
I can't post this under my regular account because I'm a man.
https://decoders.amnesty.org/projects/troll-patrol/findings#inf_12/problematic_sidebar
"abusive" is lumped togehter here with "problematic". "problematic" is more subjective and lowers the bar to be included in this abused class. They give a good example in their sidebar. "Be a good girl, go wash the dishes", but it's not detailed, so yeah, maybe "you're wrong = abuse". It would be up to the volunteers.
The #metoo movement did the same thing. It applied "if you have been sexually harassed or assaulted", meaning that to be part of the movement, you needed to either be raped at gunpoint, or somebody made a pass at you which you didn't like. Being raped at gunpoint is more powerful and memorable, so women could step forward and say #METOO and be vague about what happened to them. The horrible part is that it minimized victims of violent sexual assault with a rush of women talking about how courageous they were to come forward about that time a man said something they didn't like.
The issue of gendered violence was implied. The lesson of "fear men" was spread far and wide. But more insidiously, the message of "rape is normal" was shared loud and clear. Both to young women and to young men. Good job teaching the world that rape is normal.
Then they won't treated like anything other than the precious delicate flowers that they are.
You canâ(TM)t generalise from politicians and journos to the entire female population. That just silly and meaningless.
Second, you need to know the amount of abuse men get to understand the relative size of the problem (hint: men get more overall according to all Pew research).
Third: who is doing the insulting. Research on twitter showed âmisogynyâ(TM) came from men and women about 50-50. Wow! Who knew women could be such bitches to each other, sometimes.
Ridiculous research. Meaningless and pointless.
It also very much depends on how you define attack. I would rather like to see the precise definition before rushing to any judgement.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A woman feels she is abused. Remember all women are victims.... If all women didn't want to be abused, they would get off twitter and twitter would go out of business.
Women are on twitter to show how much of a victim they are.
Oh fuck off. Such a statistic is meaningless unless you define more strictly what it compares to, and what abuse means. The sheer number of humans means that there's going to be an awful lot of "something" happening every whatever the fuck.
"Did they compare to abuse to men?" Why does that matter? If men are abused online every 30 seconds that doesn't make this normal.
Well according to science(that thing they claim to use) that is precisely what it means..
--Highdude702(mods)
None are more hateful, cruel, and vile towards women than other women.
Where exactly did this idea, that being offended by insulting language is abuse, come from? It's nonsense and we need to get away from it.
I mean come on, surely that can get down to 20 seconds or even 15 seconds. Gotta roll some reduced cooldown recovery on gear...
I see that comment here 20 times a day aimed at Donald Trump. So your theory is flawed..
You used than correctly. That's a Stanley Nickle for you.
*That* is some tortured logic. As a general point if you have nothing else to compare it to a statistic is *unable* to provide a base line that has meaning. Studying how it affects women doesn't do anything towards showing how it affects men. Men and women are different and react differently. The only solutions to dealing with the impact of 'bad' tweets headed your way on Twitter is not to play the game - ignore, laugh at or don't post.
Tried Twitter for a month....and quit ! Home of fake twits about people I don't care about. Quit - Thats what smart women ought to do.
It isn't fragility to ask for a more data. The study has one data type with nothing to compare and contrast with, that makes it meaningless.
It's Twitter. It's like email, but 10000 times dumber.
That's like sitting there reading only your Spam folder and complaining about all the scams and porn.
Ever play Call of Duty on public servers with voice chat enabled?
I get called a "motherfucking faggot" around once per second by random 12 year olds there, does that count as 'abuse'?
-Styopa
This. Without any baseline to compare against the statistic quoted is meaningless.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Shocking indeed.
So about 30x less abuse than men?
According to the methodology used in this social "sciences" study, Trump is abused several times per second. Should we all start treating him like a poor helpless victim, just like the social "sciences" want us to treat all the other "under-privileged" groups?
Oh, they compared it to the happy joy joy world where no one is ever insulted at all. That is their control group.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Who knows? This is the same kind of research that declared a quarter of all female college students are raped and came up with that by defining a random drunken hookup as rape.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
If men are abused every 20 seconds these "researchers" and political "activists" might've learned something. Also, substantiating what constitute "abuse" might've added some meaning into their results.
Ofc troll group is right, cause feminism?
"problematic"
Yeah that doesn't sound dystopian. This article itself is abusing men and is problematic.
Everyone can see that it's specifically spun to infer that men are the problem, right?
I am sorry, but it's not so rosy on Steam for women, either.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I thought gender was a social construct
How am I supposed to know what women means? What about all the men identifying as women? Or vise versa?
Or does women actually just mean the entire collection of humanity?
2018 is difficult
Also studying how it affects women is helpful for men being abused too, as often the solutions are similar for both.
Except that they aren't, not even remotely.
E.g. there are no "men's shelters" where you can go live just by making a claim without evidence, get a free lawyer there, etc.
Whenever I see a particularly stupid comment, I respond first and then (sometimes) check to see who it is.
It's almost always a woman. And not just any more. It'll be some idiot with purple hair, stupid-as-fuck glasses, tattoos and a fucking nose ring.
Moving on to formerly respectable magazines like the Atlantic, read the article. Whenever it's something quite depraved or moronic, guess what, it's a woman.
So, if you don't want to be mocked, don't write stupid shit.
and yet he's not crying about it like a baby
Hahahahahahahahahaha ...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh god. After a stressful xmas I needed a laugh like that.
Thanks!
Twitter, a -ism factory.
Statements like the one the one from the article, beg the question what is the acceptable rate of abuse for women? One might think the number is zero. But is it? The acceptable rate for auto crashes is 0 but that's completely unrealistic. It's likely that this is similar. You can't stop all abuse (which is exactly what this article will be used to push for) but you could look at reducing abuse. So this snapshot in time from the article is somewhat useless.
It also very much depends on how you define attack. I would rather like to see the precise definition before rushing to any judgement.
I think you'll find that opinions run the gamut from actual abuse, to disagreement.
These claims often trend to the silly. My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough, but many women need intensive counselling for the grave damage done.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
More importantly, how many of those abusive posts were written by women?
(and how many abusive posts did men receive?)
I've received lots of requests to kill myself, and other postings that qualify as abusive.
This study is not about men. It is about women, who must be protected from things.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The title of this article implies that the scale is much, much smaller than it is.
The study only looked at 778 women and didn't make any attempt to extrapolate to the larger population. So, all million nasty tweets were aimed at one of them. The title implies that those million tweets apply to the broader population.
This just in: There are trolls on the internet. More news at 11.
But seriously, what does this 'troll patrol' hope to do? Require the government to form a three letter agency called the Department of Thought Police? Haters are going to hate. Trolls are going to troll. Such is life. Nobody is forcing anybody to use Twitter, and I personally can't think of any socioeconomic consequences of not using Twitter. I personally have a Twitter account for the sole purpose of taking advantage of some crap I occasionally find on Slickdeals, and I don't even use my real name on it, let alone give a shit about what anybody tweets to it.
Besides, these guys seem to be feeding the trolls, if anything. As an occasional troll myself, when I'm trolling a trip of goats from under the bridge, nothing is more satisfying than them giving an emotional response. This troll patrol is giving an emotional response to the trolls on goat's behalf, even if the goat knows better.
Just 2 pounds a month, can help us stop this. Please...
Except when the writer is re entry hired by the NYT who supported her sexist and racist comments against white men.
Please do not let facts hit your ass on the way out.
STOP using twitter.
Yeah overall studies like this perpetuate inequality. They say women can't possibly protect themselves so must be helped at all costs.
So now we are teaching victim mentality and inequality. Seems like this is counter to the stated goals of femenism but maybe not counter to the actual goals?
What ever happened to the ol sticks and stones can hurt but words never can? Anyone who cares enough about what some random jackass says on the internet deserves all the consternation they can think up.
Robotweets would have to be removed and how were retweets dealt with? Also, what qualifies as abuse is quite objective, so Iâ(TM)d have to see their criteria. For example, hey btch, looking good! Is very different from, you are such a btch.
Iâ(TM)m suspecting that the abuse, as defined by them, is probably clustered around, not women in general, but key women celebrities, women in government, etc. There may be other clusters. Thatâ(TM)s why the median, mean and standard deviation are needed and a further breakdown into subgroups.
Men make $x / minute! Sort of meaningless too. Among how many men? Whatâ(TM)s the median and mean, at the very least? Most of the money is probably clustered within a small percentage, probably in some polynomial-looking graph. Same thing here. Too little data for this to have meaning.
"Did they compare to abuse to men?" Why does that matter? If men are abused online every 30 seconds that doesn't make this normal.
Actually, that would quite literally be the definition of "normal". And that is why that matters.
If I scream "GRAVEYARDS ARE FULL OF THE BODIES OF DEAD PEOPLE!!", you're not likely to get very ruffled, now are you. Of course not, that is normal. And it isn't exactly newsworthy. In fact, it might be newsworthy if someone of note tried to make hay over the fact.
Well, this "study" is trying to make out like women being "abused" online is abnormal, but what the gp is pointing out is that "people are being abused online". So women (being actual people) being abused online is normal and not newsworthy. The fact that a "study" is being published to point out the obvious is what is newsworthy.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I'd imagine it's just as valid as that video that woman made of herself walking down the street being "harassed" repeatedly when 9/10ths of what she considered "harassment" was dudes saying "good morning" or "hello" to her. Essentially, if a male initiates contact/conversation with a female, it's abuse/harassment. Period. There can be no contact between the sexes without a female being abused. End. Of. Line.
Abuse ? Some lispy bitch has her nipples pinched and azz slapped. How fun hehehehe ...
anyone using that shit deserves abuse
There are so many misleading statistics out there and this is just another one. Their data set is very small 288,000 tweets to 778 accounts which is around 370 per account. They chose the accounts they where going to analyze by choosing ones more likely to be high profile and controversial, politics and journalism.
You appear to have missed the multitude of accusations aimed at Donald Trump that included the term 'cock holster', let alone the constant barrage of abuse regarding how he's running the country.
Seems to me to be pretty much the same thing.
I do get the difference: When he complains about it people bitch about him complaining instead of giving him support.
See subject.
Emotional pain is self inflicted, for it to have any effect you have to actually care about whoever's saying stuff about you...
People online can say anything they like about me, i don't care and it's not going to cause me any pain. If close friends or family said something it might hurt. You certainly won't be able to hurt me with your words, but you're more than welcome to try.
If care that much what random anonymous commenters on the internet say about you then you should seek some help from a psychiatrist.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
No, white men get *different* insults flung at them because many insults only make sense when targeted at a certain audience.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
It doesn't matter since it's men that make us be mean to other women. They are the cause of this.
Also, black women are the most hateful segment of society so of course they'll get more abuse back because of their constant abuse. My mother was half black so she beat me constantly.
Idiot. Your words hurt no one. Does my calling you an idiot hurt? No. Because I am some anonymous random on the internet just like you.
Stop the bullshit virtue signaling. No one outside your dumb little echo chamber cares.
If they tell us who she is maybe we can do something about it.
A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds
Who is this woman, and how can we help her?
E.g. there are no "men's shelters" where you can go live just by making a claim without evidence, get a free lawyer there, etc.
If you bothered to simply google "men's shelter" you would find hundreds of results contradicting that claim.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
For women, being verbally ostracized is clearly the equivalent to being punched in the face as a guy.
Yet, I'm always left asking... where do we draw the line? Are they strong independent women that can stick up for themselves, or do we continue to coddle and protect them from the mean mean bad bad not good words of the world?
I'd like to think women can handle themselves, however, studies like this show that we've a long way to go (and while we're at it, need to learn a thing or two about control groups).
Do that to a muslim and they may throw acid in your face
Just for comparison.
Sounds like you are more worried about hiding facts for and about men, concerned that it might pull the cloth from a false victimhood narrative you're trying to construct.
My desire for more data, particularly in how it relates to me, is not a sign of fragility. Your reflexive need to suppress knowledge dangerous to your worldview is, however.
Disagreement is not abuse. Failing to validate someone is not abuse.
I really believe articles like this are going to set women back because people are going to think abuse against women is just a lot of exaggeration and whining.
You can't address the real problem until you can be confident you are dealing with real instances.
I say this as a man with a wife, two daughters, a mom, and two living grandmas.
So, you're saying it's unimportant to know that men may be abuse 10x as much? It would seem obvious that if men are being abused massively more than women, then there should be more resources focused on helping them than women. That alone is "as a general point" reason to understand the prevalence of abuse in general and where it's targeted. To state otherwise is absurdly sexist.
'Problematic' is code for speech that the left would like to silence. This could be fucking anything, so including it to make your shocking headline means that the real problem is severely overstated.
versus the comment-count on more articles nearby that arguably fit the "news for nerds" description much better. It used to be rare to see a /. post so failed that the comment-count was two digits. Now it's common. 47 comments on "most powerful GPS", 26 on "200 million smartphones". I don't think the current /. crowd cares much about those kind of stories any more.
But here we are with 300+ on a sociological/political topic. The vast majority of them negative. More of a pile-on than a discussion worth reading, I got bored quickly. (Though the story of the guy who had to pretend to be "Alice" was great. I notice none of the pile-on gang replied to *that* post with some claim it was a flawed study that proved nothing. Switching claimed gender and getting an utterly different experience immediately, strikes me as a very clear scientific study, particularly as it is repeated with every class by the professor, semester after semester, and the outcome is, classic science here, reliably replicable)
The stated numbers suggest 4 ugly notes per day, per person - enough to make me drop my landline if they were phoned to me. Speaking of women just walking away from a medium, as I read through this topic, I couldn't find a post that was clearly from a woman. Maybe there were lots of posts by women slashdotters who happened not to mention it, but I frankly doubt it. I think there are barely any women at all reading this or commenting on it, and any that are, are reticent to mention their gender. How much time am I going to want to spend on a forum like that? It has more limited participation than friendlier ones, fewer points of view.
For anybody who wants another point of view, my big Xmas present this year was running into the excellent and funny prose of journalist Laurie Penny, who wrote a "long read" on her decade of experience with social media and being a huge magnet for online abuse:
https://longreads.com/2018/03/...
Slashdot is just becoming a poor place to read any discussions of technology news, and a great place to read a pile-on about politics, but not about real politics like tax rates or industrial regulation or public programs; just the endless, tedious "my group is hard done by" bickering of politics-as-two-sports-teams. Got bored with that on USENET in the 1990s.
I now spend fewer minutes per week on slashdot than I used to spend per day. It's a shame.
People like you are the reason we have so many snowflakes. If someone can't call you a name w/o you shrugging it off, then you have a problem. It's not the worlds issue to make your little corner of the planet a safe space. If you didn't get called names as a kid, you lived a sheltered life. When people cross the line to physical abuse, I'm there for you. But having been a victim of both as a kid, the verbal never even came close to the physical.
Just another day in Paradise
So your wife is an abusive cunt. Good to know. The proper response is no,or possibly I'm seeing somebody.
Questioning their manhood is the behavior of a cunt. Men deal with a ton of rejection in the pursuit of a date, bitches like yours just make it suck for everybody else.
Men have feelings too, perhaps rather than whining about the men they could start treating us like people?
Why does she still stay on twitter ?
You're not man enough.
Yes but a WOMAN using her tweet-tweet intertext message thing is being ABUSED. Like being physically TORTURED. It's not like she could just "do something else". She NEEDS to be using tweeter. She NEEEDS to use this essential chit-chat commodity or she will die.
Poor thing. She has no choice except to be tortured, because needs to have and use this critical life-sustaining application.
Well then, I'd say THAT woman needs to close her account. Ba-Boom! Thank you! I'll be here all week, avoid the veal!
If NlGGERS can profit by using NlGGER then its only fair that anyone else can profit from using NlGGER.
Unless NlGGERS oppose equality and support NlGGER segregation.
Log off of Twitter you twits... Simple as that.
Take a post that points out several glaring problems with the study's methodology and respond with "One of those glaring problems may not be as bad as you think. Checkmate misogynist."
Could you please respond to the other glaring problems listing in the post?
"Their explanations of the categories do not seem very precise."
Maybe you could quote the precise definition of 'problematic' they used in the study. 'Problematic' is a social justice weasel word that seems to mean whatever the author wants it to mean.
Of course, this brings up another glaring problem with the "study;" the combining of categories ("abusive OR problematic") is another red flag as it is generally used to pad statistics. If you found out that only 1 in 100 tweets were actually abusive and the other 99 in 100 were "problematic" how would that change your opinion of the study?
"a full 55% of the tweets they flag as "abusive content" fall under the category of "other"
The algorithm is so good that over half of the abusive content can't even be categorized (see "problematic" comment above). This again seems like padding statistics when your categories are so nebulous that more than half have to be classified at "other."
They singled out famous women and women in politics
Doubly disturbing -- no men in the study and a very select group of women in the study.
Both of these are again red flags that indicate what is commonly known as advocacy research -- research with a bias that starts with a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it rather than gleaning conclusions from gathered evidence; usually with the goal of creating group-specific solutions (think Violence Against WOMEN Act).
By not including men in the study, you are trying to imply that men don't get abusive or problematic tweets in any significant number, abusive or problematic tweets to men don't matter, or that the statistics would show the bias in the research.
By only including a very specific group of women in the research, you are again trying to pad your statistics as most people are aware that celebrities and politicians tend to get more tweets in general (and more abusive or problematic tweets in particular) than your run-of-the-mill person. You can't really generalize from celebrities and politicians to the general public.
After all, the headline is "A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds," not "A Woman who is a Celebrity or a Politician Receives an Abusive or Problematic Tweet (as we define them) Every 30 Seconds." Nuance is for misogynists.
And you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Even in your own response we see: "The study is more focused on the nature of the abuse." Even you have stripped out the 'problematic' aspect of the study; now it's all just 'abuse.'
So please RTFA and explain why each of these red flags aren't really red flags. And as always, please be respectful in your response as my algorithm found your first response "abusive or problematic."
It means someone disagreed with them online.
Remember, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn went to the United Nations and talked about how the united nations needs to force countries to take action against "online trolls" who are "harassing" them by "disagreeing with them" online.
I wish that weren't the case. I'd sympathize with legitimate grievances, but when you literally attack and deplatform and lie about people online and then turn around and say "harassment is women someone disagrees with you" (a thing literally said in their talk at the UN), then fuck you.
"nerd" is problematic for me as it reminds me of childhood bullying
stop abusing me
The people write these type of studies are the ones trying to use the fact that women are weak. Boo hoo women are getting insulted how shocking. Women are not weak, in my experience much more emotionally strong (and nasty) than men, but acting the victim gets them what they want. Women don't buy the sob stories from women as much as men. It has been men's role in society to be the protectors, if you truly want equality protect your own self, and stop whining about it.
When it comes to SJWs, merely existing is considered offensive.
They're a lot like religious nutjobs in that regard.
She must be a glutton for punishment, time to delete her account maybe?
Does it qualify saying you all live in your mom's basement as abuse? Are you a guy, girl, mangina or trans?
Do that to a muslim and they may throw acid in your face
Frightened aren't you? Danger around every corner - the Universe wants to hurt you, and you are plum terrified. Now get back to your HEPA filtered safe room, the very air is poisonous - I saw that in an onlinee forum.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Twitter - a toxic place. FTFY
how about get off social media then? boo hoo, it is your choice to be on twitter lol
So your wife is an abusive cunt. Good to know. The proper response is no,or possibly I'm seeing somebody.
Oh, so precious, so tender, so fragile we are. So easy to hurt and give big booboos to.
Asking a woman that they know is married is hardly the actions of an honorable man. Pulling that stunt, they should be happy that they were only told they weren't man enough.
Don't cry now.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"But seriously, what does this 'troll patrol' hope to do? Require the government to form a three letter agency called the Department of Thought Police?"
Yes actually that is it. Terrorists are groups formed by their governmemt to bully the population into accepting bad laws. At least that was the origin of terrorism, in dumbed down new world terrorism is anything that was scary.
Don't you need to first study "everything" in order to figure out how to partition said "everything" into studyable subsets. Also would it not be appropriate to state how the partitioning was designed and the possible investigator biases inherent to that process?
Social ....scientists...* might consider that in the hard sciences it is well established that the observation of a phenomenon changes it. In physics the effect is often so subtle that it can be disregarded. It seems that the equivalent effect is rarely minor in social fields. Positive feedback and self-reinforcement seem to be the default case.
To this layman, social ...science...* almost ***always*** seems to have an agenda, almost always attempting to justify why $GROUP should control $BEHAVIOR or $RESOURCES of $OTHER_GROUP.
As I wrote, I am a layman*; I may well be wrong. If so, i invite counter-examples.
* Yes, this usage IS rather arrogant on my part; it is intended as a concise example of the phenomenon I discuss.
**Which today is apparently regarded as a member of a subset of "layperson"... but I don't choose to go any farther in that direction at this time.
...of the abusers are women? Whether abusing other women, or abusing men? Or, does this study consider all women to be delicate flowers who would never hurt a fly without provocation?
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
This study is complete trash. AI didn't find enough abusive tweets, so we need problematic tweets. Of course no comparison was done to how many males are abused, because that wouldn't look so good for the study when males get abused (or problmatic'd) a lot more online.
Naaa, men cannot be abused and cannot be victims. That is a privilege of women.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This is one of those stories that if I had come across it on Facebook, would be getting a big fat heart react
Twitter there's not necessary two living in a reasonably decent life. If you don't like the way people treat you don't hang out where those people are. It's not like anybody actually needs Twitter but it sometimes people find it worth putting up with. If you don't like it don't use it.
An entirely predictable study, conclusion and coverage.
It's like someone is trying to push an agenda or something...
Never mind that the entire top end across the entire planet is corrupt and has been misappropriating social issues as distractions from said corruption.
Nah, never mind that, let's just pretend that this shitty attempt to add fuel to the fire is entirely genuine and well intentioned.
It's a game that has the newspapers reporting on the 'offence' taken, encouraging the attention seeking to shout their outrage, and with journalists harassing the original commentator whose remarks caused the twitter storm. Everyone is happy - except those attempting to have a sensible conversation. Given that I doubt it will stop soon...
When it indulges in this sort of bad science, it brings their reputation for reliable reporting in their main area of activity into question. Sad; they used to do a good job.
Someone is very insecure.
Considering that women are generally the ones that initiate divorce and that you don't really know if people are married online, she's a cunt that's rationalizing her own bad before based on her projection of what they're thinking.
Also the confusion between what people do and what they're is incredibly immature. Guys are going to ask random women out because there isn't really any alternative other than celibacy or going gay.
Your wife is acting like a bitch responding like that. Simply saying no is hardly a huge imposition.
And how often are men abused on Twitter?
I'd guess at least as often, if not more. It's a different kind of harassment (generally non-sexual) but if you think men get a happy-happy-joy-joy experience on Twitter then you're either woefully misinformed or the proud owner of a serious head injury.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Frightened aren't you? Danger around every corner - the Universe wants to hurt you, and you are plum terrified.
This is the mindset that FOX News and others loooooove to perpetuate to their right-wing/conservative audience- that the world is a dangerous place and everyone is out to get you.
Conservative mindsets eat that shit up, which is why numpties like Hannity and Limbaugh and Jeanine Pirro continue to exist.
"Oh no, brown people! Migrants! Homeless people! Gays! Liberals! Atheists! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!!!!"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Those oversensitive bitches.
No need for all that anger bro. They can't throw acid in the face online... So when you do it to them in person, 1) wear a burka for protection, and 2) have a father or brother or male cousin with you to beat their ass after they fail.
Keep in mind our president probably got more than all of those woman combined.
Men are more abused on the internet and significantly more likely to be physically assaulted in real life.
Wahhhhmen.....
I'll add to your comment.... it was a national TV host who made the "cock holster" comment on his national TV show, not some yahoo on the internet. And loads of people jumped to his defense, rather than criticizing him for being offensive or abusive. Famous people. People who are on national news shows, not just random internet yahoos. So don't pretend for a second that Trump gets a pass because of gender.. that's just plain stupid.
Meanwhile, in direct response to the AC you reply to, no national personality is calling a female politician a c*** who needs to stick to using her mouth for sucking d***. More to the point, no national personalities were attacking Hillary Clinton for being a weak female, despite the claims of the AC. They attacked her directly on policy and on her personal character - as is traditional when running political campaigns. (don't even pretend that your preferred party wouldn't cast Jesus himself as Satan personified if he was running on the opposing ticket.... that's how politics is done.)
Considering that women are generally the ones that initiate divorce and that you don't really know if people are married online, she's a cunt that's rationalizing her own bad before based on her projection of what they're thinking.
Also the confusion between what people do and what they're is incredibly immature. Guys are going to ask random women out because there isn't really any alternative other than celibacy or going gay.
Your wife is acting like a bitch responding like that. Simply saying no is hardly a huge imposition.
They know she is married - it's right in her bio.
And seriously, you are utilizing the actions of a cunt by telling me all about what she "is", without knowing the situation. Don't be a cunt.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If Bert64's comment was too difficult for you to follow, you can just go with the ELI5 version, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
That used to be a common phrase that every school child learned. Now they learn that they should report any offensive comment to the central committee.
Frightened aren't you? Danger around every corner - the Universe wants to hurt you, and you are plum terrified.
This is the mindset that FOX News and others loooooove to perpetuate to their right-wing/conservative audience- that the world is a dangerous place and everyone is out to get you.
Conservative mindsets eat that shit up, which is why numpties like Hannity and Limbaugh and Jeanine Pirro continue to exist.
Ugh. I suppose the best thing about them is that they corral the mentally ill in one place.
"Oh no, brown people! Migrants! Homeless people! Gays! Liberals! Atheists! THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU!!!!"
Gonna take our jerbs!! I vacillate between disdain, ridicule, and feeling sorry for these tools.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's a toxic place for everyone. How is that news?
If they think that women with left-leaning politics get more abuse than women with right-leaning politics, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this reveals more about their own political leanings in their classification of what counts as abuse than it does about the online culture. There is no way in hell that a leftie female gets more abuse online than a right-wing female. In fact, I'd say a right-wing female is probably about as big a target online as you could get - only topped by a black right wing female.
But then again, their sample was pulled from a very left-leaning group. I'd be shocked if their sample was more than 20% right/center-right.
A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds
Poor her! I know that it is not the victim who should make a change, but perhaps she should consider hanging out on another social media platform instead?
>> A Woman on Twitter is Abused Every 30 Seconds
That'S a very low rate, considering hte number of tweets published every second (6000)
aaaaaaa
Keep your internet out of the kitchen!
Just another day in Paradise
And you pretend that rapes aren't up by 550% in five years in Sweden and acid attacks aren't up by 390% in five years in London.
Nope. Just fear mongering. No sudden rise in Islam to see here. Carry on. Refugees welcome!
White Knight defending a filthy whore online. Typical.
73% of black men have herpes. Get yourself tested.
Back in my day there was a saying, 'on the internet, no one knows you're a dog'. Everything was pseudonymous and no one knew your appearance, age, gender, sexual preferences, nationality, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, shoe size, etc. The only way to judge someone was on the content of their posts. These days people are using real names & pictures by default, and including all of the aforementioned details as if they are preparing a D&D character sheet, and they wave that stuff around like it's a personalized flag. I'm not surprised social media is a cancerous cesspool, the level of information people put out there is too much material for bad actors to work with.
My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough
What a cunt. She could have just said she's married, rather than cutting a guy's balls off every time one shows interest. She better not say this to peoples' faces, she could come home with a black eye and a bloody nose for that kind of talk.
You can't project the expected hate mail towards public figures like that. For shame that this is on /. but what can you expect these days.
Would this study still be so thoroughly criticized here if the subject wasn't women?
My wife is asked out all the time on line. In today's world, that is sexual harassment. She just giggles and tells the guy he's not man enough
What a cunt. She could have just said she's married, rather than cutting a guy's balls off every time one shows interest. She better not say this to peoples' faces, she could come home with a black eye and a bloody nose for that kind of talk.
Oh, little snowflake, it is apparently easy to give you booboo feelings. Perhaps you are not man enough to take any negativity? I told my wife, and she said she was so sorry that she gave you hurts.
A few words completely emasculate you. Sad. Now give mommy and daddy's laptop back to them, and come back when you are out of middle school, and off of Ritalin.
Bring up your trolling game, because you are getting boring by just repeating yourself.
Peace out.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What constitutes an "attack" though. These days correctiong a woman when she makes a wrong or false statement is an "attack". If you're wrong you're wrong, even when you have a vagina.
They know she is married - it's right in her bio.
And seriously, you are utilizing the actions of a cunt by telling me all about what she "is", without knowing the situation. Don't be a cunt.
Honestly, my bio said I was a widower. I'm not (just so you know). Not everything you see online is real and a fair amount of women will just put "married" in their bio, just to fend of the majority of "proposals".
That said, the other guy's reactions to what she said are rather harsh. You could also just have a come-back to that line and not be the fragile cunt. Bet she could take what she dishes out ;-) (and no that is not double entendre :p )
Hitting on someone is NOT sexual harassment, and if they are polite about it, insults are uncalled for.
I think your wife has self-esteem issues and that's why she needs to put someone down to feel better about herself.
reading the headline, makes you think that there's a very popular woman on twitter and she's being abused on twitter.. ( seriously, how can you abuse someone on twitter... otherwise it should be called bullied or trolled or something... ) /bullying or other shit , we're living in an over sensibilized 'if you're not politically correct you suck and therfore should die (how ironic)' world..
While i certainly don't condone / allow abusive lanagage
Stop taking all this shit so very serious and fuck it for example if someone calls you madame while you're a miss or even another gender or whatever.. get over yourselves and chill the fuck out.. (and if someone is trolling, retweet that shit with a comment so people troll the trolls.. )