Slashdot Mirror
'I Got Death Threats For Writing a Bad Review of Aquaman' (huffingtonpost.com)
The Huffington Post recently published a post by one of the 300 members of the Broadcast Film Critics Association -- and a contributing writer to Variety:
I saw "Aquaman" on a brisk Monday morning in December. Though I appreciated that star Jason Momoa didn't take himself too seriously while playing an underwater superhero, the glut of CGI effects distracted me from the story. Which was hollow and nonsensical anyway. As with every movie I watch -- up to four a week, hundreds a year -- I expressed my opinion in print and online for Us Weekly, as well as my own site, MaraMovies.com. The review was also linked on Rotten Tomatoes, where I'm a Top Critic.
Since I had a lot of films on my busy holiday schedule, I quickly moved on. Hundreds of men who read my review did not.... [Example comment: "I will kill your mom, dad and friends Bcoz I want [you] to regret for what u did. I have your address and details about your family members."] I reported the messages to Instagram and was rebuffed because, per the automated response, the vitriol didn't "violate community guidelines." Didn't matter. They found me on Facebook and Twitter, too.... Nearly 2,000 people "liked" a post in which some guy made a collage of my face and a few negative reviews.... I wasn't scared by the threats as I much as I was disheartened. One guy summed it up when he messaged me: "How many of us are you going to block? There are thousands of us."
Ironically, the review wasn't all negative. It called Aquaman "the first live-action D.C. Comics movie in which a superhero actually appears to be having fun. Batman, Superman, the Suicide Squad, even our beloved Wonder Woman tend to behave as if they just lost their 401(k) savings during the apocalypse." Yet rifing on the critic's last name, one commenter still wrote "hope another Holocaust happens."
Instead of "thousands" of angry fans, it could just be hundreds who are using multiple accounts. But there's a larger issue. "I worry that reading volumes of hate mail is starting to get in my head and cause me to consider the potential angry male ramifications while I'm writing my reviews, thereby compromising my integrity."
Since I had a lot of films on my busy holiday schedule, I quickly moved on. Hundreds of men who read my review did not.... [Example comment: "I will kill your mom, dad and friends Bcoz I want [you] to regret for what u did. I have your address and details about your family members."] I reported the messages to Instagram and was rebuffed because, per the automated response, the vitriol didn't "violate community guidelines." Didn't matter. They found me on Facebook and Twitter, too.... Nearly 2,000 people "liked" a post in which some guy made a collage of my face and a few negative reviews.... I wasn't scared by the threats as I much as I was disheartened. One guy summed it up when he messaged me: "How many of us are you going to block? There are thousands of us."
Ironically, the review wasn't all negative. It called Aquaman "the first live-action D.C. Comics movie in which a superhero actually appears to be having fun. Batman, Superman, the Suicide Squad, even our beloved Wonder Woman tend to behave as if they just lost their 401(k) savings during the apocalypse." Yet rifing on the critic's last name, one commenter still wrote "hope another Holocaust happens."
Instead of "thousands" of angry fans, it could just be hundreds who are using multiple accounts. But there's a larger issue. "I worry that reading volumes of hate mail is starting to get in my head and cause me to consider the potential angry male ramifications while I'm writing my reviews, thereby compromising my integrity."
to the internet. You seem to be new here...
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Oh, this is really just a female being hounded by nerdy incels. It likely has little to do with Aquaman, if anything.
The fact aquaman is grossing over a billion dollars worldwide so soon ahead of so many other titles is proof we are now in an alternate timeline.
"I worry that reading volumes of hate mail is starting to get in my head and cause me to consider the potential angry male ramifications while I'm writing my reviews, thereby compromising my integrity."
So then, why are you reading it?
It's usually apparent in the first few words what is going on. Just stop reading and move on. It's not even worth the effort of writing up a rebuttal, unless maybe you use the effort for a writing exercise or just for the lols.
But if you do read it, just remember that death threats on the internet are absurdly hollow. No-one wants to actually get up from a chair and do anything about anything (in that regard, possibly people with standing desks should be taken slightly more seriously - they will definitely let you know if they have a standing desk).
If you have more of your public info known maybe take steps to give the local police a heads-up about possible swatting attempts, but that's as far as you need to think about it.
The internet has seen people issuing all manner of death threats or creepy vibes since the dawn of time. Taking any of it even a tiny bit seriously makes zero sense. Just think of them as a write-only form of fan and happily keep doing what you do. There a special irony these days in people that hate follow you, in that they are inherently increasing your internet "attention metric" which makes you numerically more important than you would be otherwise!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Of aquaman fans
Aquaman was probably one of the better DC movies. (Haven't seen WonderWoman yet). The acting was alright. The plot wasn't without holes, but which super hero movie has an ironclad plot. The CGI was sometimes terrible: DC really need to stop the "fight while flying" scenes that look straight out of a bad live action dragon ball z. They were terrible in Justice League and the under water duel in Aquaman had similar problems.
Overall, it entertained me for a couple of hours and I'll probably rewatch it at some point. But as some people put it, while it is a top-tier DC super hero movie, it would be bottom tier if it were a marvel movie.
I wanted to see Disney release their own ground breaking Marvel superclassic new idea:
Sub-Mariner
at the exaxt same time as Aquaman.
All I am saying, is give fish a chance. /s
I'm not particularly tied to any brand of superhero - I've watched most of the Avengers stuff, and a lot of the DC stuff.
I've not yet watched Aquaman but from the previews, and from some reviews I've seen it seems like Aquaman at least took things a bit less seriously - so maybe Aquaman is a bit more like the Spiderman movies in that regard?
So I could easily see between that and some large showpiece effect pieces how it could gross a billion. Or maybe it's because underwater fights in movies are much more rare and so this is visually "fresh" compared to standard superhero space/ground combat.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These people are basement dwelling losers. It is right and proper that they are offended by mere criticism of a comic book adaptation.
Honestly, if it isn't, I would have stopped using the service... and if my job depended on it, I would explain to my employer why I did so, or at the very least, require a raise on account of needing danger pay.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
(1) It's her fault for feeling bad.>
No - I'm saying it's in her ability to not feel bad about it. Big distinction, which I'm sure will elude you but I think the smarter among us will grok it.
(2) She should be thankful for the attention.
The term "thankful" is incorrect. However as long as anyone is able to shrug off negative comments, in fact there is a net positive - especially for someone writing for publication, what the "corporate machine" as it were sees is a LOT of comments on something you wrote. Score!
See what a lot of people don't seem to understand here is that the saddest thing on the internet is to write something, which no-one pays any attention to. Hate or Love are signs that you have moved someone, which is valuable either way - because you have changed the universe in same way, at least a little bit.
(3) Her level of fame is undeserved.
I'm not sure how you get there from where I was, her level of fame simply IS. How anyone could state a particular level of fame is "undeserved" makes zero sense to me, as it is what they have and "deserved" does not enter in the equation.
Going back to specifics, I think her review was probably about right (not having seen the movie yet it's hard to be sure, but it sounds right from what I've heard).
Generically, I'm just giving everyone advice on how to live, so as to lead a happy and productive life that elevates humanity as a whole instead of being lowered by a small fragment of it. Going back to that Love/Hate thing, both are energy and all energy can provide fuel for your own creative efforts. Nuclear material is powerfully destructive, but energy from a nuclear plant can power a million greenhouses of the finest flowers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They found me on Facebook and Twitter, too.
Yet another reason not to use social media with your real name.
As if we needed another one on top of the countless others.
Seriously? I know the anti-SJWism is strong on this forum, but no, nobody outside of a few YouTuber's looking for the next big controversy to rile their fanbase up with and solicit Patreon donations with even noticed they got a heart throb to play Aquaman (which is the extent of the "marketing" towards women).
I mean, the first Thor movie was pretty crap and there were't any death threats there. And don't you tell me it's anti male because there's a strong female lead in it. Go read the bloody comics. Aquaman's wife is a fucking bad ass and has been since the late 70s (not sure before then, didn't follow that era). You wanna piss off Aquaman fans (both of us)? Go make a male power fantasy where his wife needs a savin'.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What does the word "male" do in that sentence except adding sexism? Does it matter what gender the hate mailers have?
Huffpost is not long for this world. They are owned by AOL/Verizon. Verizon gives companies 2-3 years to 'prove themselves'. Then they come in and tear shit up if it is not 'performing'. There is no way huffingtonpost is performing. Dialup is performing better from what I remember.
Media outlets owned by corporations or other special interest groups operate by different rules than other companies. The way they perform is measured by how many people they reach because that translates directly into the ability to shape public opionin which has all kinds of benefits for the owner of the outlet other that what nickels and dimes they earn off of it. If a media outlet turns a profit that is only gravy.
2% of the population are psychopaths; also 2% are sadists.
In a world of nearly 8 billion people - with 4% psychopaths or sadists that is 320 million people who have a natural tendency to do such behavior. So when you are on a platform like twitter or instagram and can be contacted by anyone - chances are you are going to encounter a large number of them. Since the platforms allows some anonymity - they can engage in their behavior with little risk of repercussions.
Nobody likes Aquaman. Everyone knows this.
You people posting these hateful replies and death threats (!!) in response to a movie review need to get a life.
If you have a life, then you need to get a better one.
I can't imagine being so incensed over a movie review as to actually start making death threats.
For example, casting that pint-sized douchebag Tom Cruise as the character "Jack Reacher" really, really, really pissed me off, but it never occurred to me to send a death threat to anyone over it. Sheesh.
(For those of you who aren't familiar with the original, actual Jack Reacher character, one of his main distinguishing features is that he's a big guy- really big. Like, way way way bigger than Tom Cruise. That's part of his whole schtick- he's a great big dude. It's central to his entire character.
Picking Tom Cruise to play Jack Reacher was the single most fucked-up character casting choice I've ever seen in my life, period. It would be like picking one of the Oompa Loompas to play Arnold Schwarzenegger, or having Liberace play "Dog The Bounty Hunter.")
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
You mean to say that you wrote a negative review of the movie. Not that writing a bad review is ever justification to receive death threats, but now you're at risk of getting hate mail from the grammar Nazis too.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
.. why a threat to kill someone, anyone, would not be a violation of their terms of service.
Sure, it's against terms of service.
But the problem is how do you find that balance of, letting as many people as possible provide feedback and thus feel more engaged - vs. locking down the system so much no-one wants to contribute, and they feel unwelcome.
If you really want to control things via "terms of service" you need to have a system locked down enough you can actually manage to control it. But then you are shutting out a lot of people who would just casually comment.
It does seem to me like a good modern compromise would be for comments on something to be wide open, but be auto-filtered by an AI to recognize spam and/or extremely derogatory or hate filled content. Semantic understanding has gained a lot of ground to where you could probably have an effective neutral network police comments that would mostly work, or work well enough for manual moderation to pick up any remaining slack.
One aspect of such a system I've been thinking about for a while is, you could probably start by looking for users who block/mark comments with 100% accuracy. Going forward you should probably trust their markings automatically rather than waiting for a moderator to examine what they marked, and you could base training for filters on what they mark. Sure that has potential for abuse, but if you do not let them know they have that automatic power it probably would not be abused or someone veering into abuse could be quickly recognized and be removed from an automatically trusted list.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I recently caught an article by Max Read about how much of the Internet is "fake" in the sense that the readership is actually bots defrauding those paying for the ads:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer...
I bring up this topic because it strikes me that the people paying for all these sites may soon demand to know how many verifiable human beings are actually in the audience.
5 years ago, much less 20, you wouldn't have caught me saying that a lot of the web should be not locked behind paywalls exactly, but require proof-of-individual-humanity at least. And that would in practice lead to "proof" via credit card. Now I'm ready to cave on that anyway.
I'd rather live in a society that has cops; rather drink in a bar that has bouncers. I'd rather talk in a space where threats of violence result in not only permanent expulsion, but the same legal consequences as saying the same thing to my face. (An assault charge. Mere threats are an assault. Hence the term "assault and battery" if actual contact occurs.) Right now, assault is a crime IRL but not on the Internet, in any practical sense.
And I think that 99% of this crap would stop if the commentators all knew that the threatened person could find out where they live and send over cops with an assault charge.
I have an appalling habit, of comments on news columns. It's pointless, I know, it's identical to shouting at the TV, but there you go. (It started with /. in the 90s) I notice that the NYT and WaPo, which require a sign-up to comment, almost never have harsh language, much less threats. I used to comment at The Atlantic, which did not...and now The Atlantic has shut down the whole comment system, since they were just providing a chat room that was mostly used by angry people, the thoughtful ones having been chased out of the bar with no bouncers.
Her review is hardly a feminist critique of the movie. The negative points it details are bad CGI, wooden acting, cheese ball lines, and poor romance sub plot chemistry while acknowledging that the character of Aquaman himself was much more fun than the rest of the DC universe heroes.
Now I haven't seen the movie so I have no idea how accurate her claims are but what is glaringly obvious is that there's no radical feminist agenda preset in it.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
he recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity.
Online threats are the very opposite of "masculine". Raging hormones in men say "let's take it outside then", not "let's step into my basement with the wall full of Hentai statues and DVD rips".
Online threats are the very domain of beings that are neither masculine or feminine; indeed they have chosen to strip themselves even even the most basic levels of humanity or physical attributes.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mod up please
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
and sifting through crap you and I would find abhorrent for the sake of reporting and chronicling things is what she does for a living? She might, for example, be searching for a point in all that hate.
I've been trying to figure out why folks are so obsessed with SJWism lately. It's treated as a major crisis online on par with our economy, education, global warming and the US Healthcare system. A few angry feminists with little or no political power doesn't seem to be a good focal point for a movement when 45,000 Americans will die this year from preventable illness and by all accounts our economy is on it's way to a recession. Nevermind that we've been at war with Afghanistan for almost as long as my kid's been alive.
If you want to understand something you're going to have to dig into it. A lot of what I get out of the Incel crowd is pretty abhorrent, but I'd like to think there's something to their frustrations & misplaced rage than simply being nasty, mean spirited people. And to get anywhere you have to listen to them. Yes. there have been cases of men abused by feminazis. Based on the stats I think there's about 10,000 false rape accusations a year, which is scary (it might be scarier that there's somewhere in the ballpark of 800,000 rapes per year of that 10,000 # is accurate....).
If you're going to try and fix somebody's complaint you have to try to understand it. Few go through life full of rage because they want to. If we can get a bead on why and tackle root causes in a way that's beneficial for all that's the right thing to do.
If you're a journalist or writer you're on the front lines of that. What you're hearing from her is the journalists equivalent of a solider complaining about war. Nothing wrong with that.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
LOL you'd wet yourself for sure if it happened to you
and sifting through crap you and I would find abhorrent for the sake of reporting and chronicling things is what she does for a living?
That might be what she was doing for this article, but why continue after - when I'm saying saying it's better not to read, I am mostly responding to her expressed concern that it would affect what she chose to write going forward. If that's a concern, stop reading the content that might affect you in that way.
Just like some people won't drink coffee at night, if you know something affects you in a negative way, don't consume it - mentally or physically.
If you're going to try and fix somebody's complaint
That's where you need to learn to distinguish between complaint and ingenuous complaint. With most online hate as I said, it's very clear within the first few words what kind of complaint you are facing. You can't "fix" someone's obviously fully-baked opinion, or something made up, so why make an effort to do so?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity.
or, gillette opened a new marketing campaign with an attack on men. Very soon the SJW's are going to be saying that the "MRAs started it" and other such crap. You can see about that a self proclaimed SJW is saying how men started the attack on wonder woman when it was wonder womans marketing department opening with an attack on men.
Social Justice Fools are Corporate tools
"His name was James Damore."
the recent Gillette commercial where the company said men should tone down their toxic masculinity. Here is a great example. Because the reviewer wrote something which didn't effusively glow about a how ripped Momoa was, about how manly he looked, about how his character portrayed all that is manly (based on the above blurb it seemed the character did not do that), the "men" came out in droves to criticize, belittle and of course, threaten the person who gave their honest opinion.
It's almost as if Gillette was sending out a not so subtle message about reality.
Here's a little video based on the Gillete video for your perusal - I hope you'll comment on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
We live in a funny world, where women are pure, honest and upstanding, and it is just, right, and fair to stereotype males - a level of prejudice that would make the Grand Dragon of the KuKlux Klan blush.
We're probably never going to eliminate these toxic males any more than we are going to eliminate toxic females. Especially since it is social suicide to even admit that there is such a thing as toxic femininity. Well, mon chichi - there sure is. So try not to be so prejudicial and using stereotypes that fit a narrative that dishonestly preaches inclusivity while labeling everything like a 19th century phrenologist.
But to the matter at hand - I have a presence on the internet, and get invitations to kill myself, or that someone wants to take out a second amendment solution all the time. And despite your thoughts, not all from men. (as far as I can tell - in the internet a person can be anyone) But by the way - if someone makes a credible death threat - I have law enforcement on my side.
The real solution for this person is to not allow commentary, and not post her email address on the stories. If she wants, she can have huffpost filter responses for her. Because short of a one strike you're out rule that kills any male who bothers a woman, or potentially bothers one - it just isn't possible to fix that sort of problem. Besides, there is still the problem of toxic women.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I got death threats way back when for pointing out that Nickelback sucked.
"Being that Aquaman was aggressively marketed towards women"
It was supposed to make them wet?
The specific use of a gender over the generic "people" suggests the author has a chip on her shoulder; how does she know it was men, or all men?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If a person in real life threatens to kill you, you call the police. If a person threatened to kill me on the Internet, I'd also call the police. I don't understand how this can happen and people are not being arrested and put into jail. Threatening somebody's life is illegal.
I don't respond to AC's.
Looks like this place is fucked either way.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If that derails you, I guess I better not repeat the replies I got to a review I did on Ghostbusters 2016. Could I get some hollow death threats instead?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's a very amusing book I'm reading at the moment, that covers a dystopian future where the identity politicians win. And what happens to the world when a genuine threat arises.
As with most good satire, there's a strong kernel of truth at the heart of it. Have a read (It's called "Protocol" by M.M Holt).
There are some definite laughs in there, but I really, heartily wouldn't recommend it if you take your identity politics seriously.
Two issues.
1, "Huffington Post"
2, "Hundreds of *men* who read my review did not" (which is exactly why, Huffington Post gives a shit)
Jason Momoa is a handsome man, currently in the "omg yes please!" Club for girls (and some men) across the world. I find it hard to believe this guy was threatened only by men. Furthermore, I suspect this was exaggerated, due again to #1, who have an act to grind.
They may as well be called "extreme left, hate white men post" at this point.
http://i.4pcdn.org/tv/14639966...
+3 if I could.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Looks like this place is fucked either way.
No, it looks like they are only fucked if their hit rate goes down or if they start questioning the wisdom of the 'suggestions' their corporate overlords have on what topics they should concentrate their writing on and what slant their writing should have. It's pretty much the same as various parts of the Murdoch media like, say .... Fox News for example. Except I expect entities like the Huffington Post to be much more subtle about it. Fox News is, in the best of gutter press news reporting tradition, a bit of a shotgun blast to the face while outfits like the Huffington post are more refined, like a rifle.
... the story. Which was hollow and nonsensical anyway
That is every single superhero movie ever (almost).
He must have known that going in.
"Toxic male plays whattabout toxic females as a distraction from fixing their INCEL status, news at 11"
Whataboutism is when you try to cast the other side as hypocritical. This video merely shows that toxicity is not limited to men.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You can stop right there: no excuse needed. The most trivial form of moderation is all that's needed.
That's trivial to say, but the reality is even the most trivial form of moderation is very hard to do - even simply getting rid of death threats which are super obviously useless. For any site with a lot of separate articles, that is WAY too much work for humans to do, and for some reason automation to date seems to not do a very good job catching anything that really should be blocked... it's true of any site that had a large number of readers and people commenting.
Can you name any large site that handles a lot of comments that is free of fairly noxious stuff much of the time?
I personally am perfectly OK with any site clamping down hard on speech that is worthless in terms of content - however a lot of the world seems to have confused that speech, with ideological views they disagree with and so they leave up many outright death threats while blocking others for simply saying they do not like someone else's views. There again, seemingly trivial moderation is utterly failing.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If you think it's an attack on men then you must have a really fucking low opinion of men. Why do you hate us so much?
We're not actually all raging arseholes you know.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
HuffPo is subtle with their sexism like Donald Trump is subtle with his trolling.
Aqua-man was one of the first movies in a while where people were clapping at the end. It wasn't a standing ovation, but still it caught me by surprise. I enjoyed the movie. i wasn't bored or itching for it to be done. Jason M did a decent job of it as well. You have to expect that not every movie is going to be "Mississippi Burning" (which I really rate as up there damn good) or Forrest Gump.
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
...well boys really, seem to too depended on the rest of the world liking exactly what they like. They need some sort of validation that they aren't getting in their real lives. Or they're just anarchist trolls.....or both.
Back when Andrew Breitbart was a co-founder of Huffington Post, it wasn't the fever swamp that it has become.
Who cares on which "side" they're on, if you're giving death threats because of some insecurities caused by someone else opinion you really need to get checked for mental issues.
the movies "Captain America: Civil War" and "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" annoyed me because (for one reason) the main conflict could have been avoided if the characters had simply talked and listened to each other.
Half the episodes of Noddy: Toyland Detective are the same way, incidentally.
So some anonymous misogynists threatened to kill me. Click these links to learn more!
Come to think of it, Aquaman” is a great product name for lube.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
unless you are searching for attention? this movie is without doubt one of the best of the year
I remember a time where people weren't so outwardly disrespectful in such concentrated numbers. The vitriol is unbearable. Time to burn this Internet down and start a new one with some accountability built in. That anyone can get away with making death threats against someone expressing a respectful opinion is disgusting.
Parmasean Cheese. It's what's for dinner.
In other words, everyone should start writing inflammatory, divisive, polarizing texts
That would not inspire Love.
The fact that something may inspire Hate also, does not mean you should strive for Hate, you should always seek Love.
But in doing so, there will always be those moved the other way - what I am saying, is that one should realize that is OK as well, you should not seek polarization as a goal, it will happen regardless of intent if you have said anything interesting. You should always strive for clarity and purpose and strong intent, or why even write anything?
I mean, to flip what you are saying on its head - if people were to mellow writing as you seem to imply is desirable, they should write only the most bland inoffensive content. The should write so as to strip away all emotion until what was left was the thinnest of gruel that leaves the mind dissatisfied and ill-fed. What good is that to anyone? Most especially themselves...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real
It is real. But you are wholly in control of how much it affects you. That too is real. Words that you chose not to view have even less power over you. Do you claim otherwise?
Realize these simple truths, and you too will be free. The Haters may come, but they will be as the gentle rain to the duck upon the water. The harshest of online comments is truly a whisper compared to your own voice, when you chose to listen to yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The ad said directly that "some" men were OK. That implies the rest, or majority, are not... how is that not an attack on men generally?
The whole ad had a condescending tone of an educational film you were forced to watch in school. Even ignoring that aspect though, clearly the ad is claiming most men harass women, which is simply not the case.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... anonymously harass cute female online columnist.
Next up: Water wet! Pope Catholic!
Lady, unless you're writing about beauty tips and have to rely on being a public figure yourself, use a friggin pseudonym when writing online.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
The essential problem with a lot of the dialogue about internet "harassment" is that it ignores a few salient points.
The internet has zero barrier to entry for discussion. A ten year old girl can send death threats on the internet.
As social animals, human beings moderate entry to discussion on the basis of age, appearance, social class and intelligence. They use various signals to determine if a given individual is worthy of being granted entry into a dialogue.
Those signals are largely absent on the internet unless someone is using their real-world identity or they've built up an identity which has widespread credibility. Most internet discussions thus have no barrier to entry allowing children to participate as freely as Nobel prize winners. Anyone who seriously talks about "men harassing women" on the internet is a moron. It's children harassing anyone who crosses into their line of fire. I'd wager most "harassment" comes from teenagers who are delighted to find a medium in which they can exercise power in contrast to a society where they usually have very little.
Similarly, a sheltered Leftist college student with no experience of the real world is able - from the shelter of his safe space - to try and lecture real men who do society's dirty work. Normally these two groups would never engage because the sheltered college boy would be too despised to be granted entry to the dialogue of masculine men.
Thus, the conflict on the 'Net caused by a lack of social barriers and consequences. It's not hard to understand, it's just annoying to see the rampant stupidity written about it.
In the case of the article, the critic has no idea who is sending him death threats and his assumption that they are "men" is ludicrous. They're most likely teen DC fans spewing forth invective from the safety of their mother's basement. And some of them will be girls.
You live in a land with free speech.
Deal with it.
Get a gun to protect your self. Hand out guns to your family.
Oh, I got side tracked reading a hate thread on FB ... what did I want to say ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Saying "Hundreds of men" is more woke.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
See, the thing is, whining *works*. It gets the media's attention, and builds up pressure to get revenge on the people being whined about. One could argue that these "social justice warriors" are just using the weapons at hand. Sad little weapons, but sometimes surprisingly effective.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Hm. yeah, I see a time when only positive feedback is allowed. That would solve it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I think his point is that most of this kind of crap is originating from one geological area.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The dark side of advertising.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
No it did not. You haven't watched the ad. Yo've just jumped on the internet outrage machine.
Unlike you, I carefully watched the whole ad, because I don't believe in just reading reactions. I need to see the source.
So I watched the whole thing through, very carefully. I honestly don't feel the ad is as bad as some are saying - in fact I probably would just say it was preachy, but OK, if they had not included that "some" remark...
If you start the ad at 1:00 exactly, this is what you hear:
To say the right thing, to act the right way. SOME already are.
I don't expect a full apology from you for not even bothering to re-watch a two minute ad to verify facts. But I do think you should take a hard look at your own mind, what led to the blind spot that made you miss that distinctive part of the video, so prominently placed.
I didn't read the rest of what you wrote because if you didn't even have that right, obviously the rest of what you said was based on false assumption so is incorrect.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My whole life, I've run into people who take comic books way too seriously. I mean, I get it to an extent. For many people, this was the stuff that formulated their ideas of right and wrong, in childhood. And many people went on to embrace such things as the quality artwork that went into the more advanced graphic novels. There's even a whole social group that evolved around attending the comic conventions.
But you've gotta be able to step back from all of it and realize it's just make-believe. There's absolutely no sane reason to threaten a movie critic with their life because they wrote a negative review of a movie about a comic book character.
I don't believe this has a thing to do with a "mens' rights" crowd who feels Aquaman counters the evil that was Wonder Woman becoming a successful movie! A whole lot of guys I know got a big laugh about of the photoshopped pic passed around the Internet with Aquaman's star stuck at the bottom of the sea, dying, because he got one of those plastic rings stuck around his neck from the 6 packs of soda cans.
And there it is. Angry male. I'll tall you, mate. I'm an angry male. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not going to hide or apologize or deny it. Bigotry against my sex and race has been blasted at me for decades and I'm sick of it.
I don't know what your review is and I don't know or care whether this is yet another in a long line of false flags, whether you're lying through your teeth, or whether 4chan took an interest in you.
I'm angry and I'm not alone. Another thing I am not is the out-of-control nutjob you and your ilk want to paint me as. Shove your libel so far up your ass that you taste it. Let me tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going to vote. I'm going to write letters. I'm going to protest. I'm competent, informed, and capable of making a real difference. So keep drumming that narrative. I'm coming for your type and so are other angry white men. We're coming for your biased courts. We're coming for your unjust laws. We're coming for your bigotry and lies. We're not going to stop until every female supremacist is a laughingstock. Now quote-mine this and put it in a journal as a "threat". But that won't stop us or our allies. Nothing will.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
> "potential angry male ramifications"
The simple fact is, trolls will attack anyone they perceive to be low-hanging fruit. And trolls can be anyone— male or female. Why should anyone trust anything a troll says, including that they may represent themselves as male? They will present themselves as anything that the target might find offensive. Only one thing can be safely said about trolls as a group: They want you to suffer. And they will pick targets who are more likely to publicly express anguish or outrage. For trolls this is a win. This is why women in the public eye are more likely to get death or rape threats— because they are likely to be goaded into responding publicly.
You keep getting death threats because you are stupid. When you write critics, stay objective and use proper language. You used insulting opinions to describe things in your article. If you'd been a bit professional in your language usage (like any writer should), your critique would have been more than helpful to most people. Go back and read your article again in great details and imagine you're being criticized. How would it make you feel? And if you are a faithful fan, would you go and make death threats to the guy that wrote it?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The horde existed since the dawn of Internet. Hence the term Eternal September (I miss using HTML syntax :-) )
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
the same losers using the same fascist tactics. incels are part of the same manufactured mob too.
the vast majority of them are complete fucking losers manipulated by actual nazis for political purposes. and they don't even bother trying to hide the similarities and connections between the different loser groups being manipulated.
"I get death threats for posting in comments of a website," see parent and grandparent. Definitely a much less noteworthy story but still pretty much the same, no real cause, no real end effect except this post slightly edited forever.