5 ms·

Sure. And, also, being a woman. Do you genuinely think that a man with this level of medium-notoriety would so consistently get abuse like this?

giantg2 5y ago
If they are against hate groups and ran a piece on them... then yes, I do believe a man would get similar levels of hate.
- culi 5y ago
  I think that, no matter what hate groups they cover, I find it really hard to see a man getting death threats for tweeting about being annoyed by someone interrupting their workout to comment on their body. I feel like there's a qualitative difference in those two experiences
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Is the workout thing why they're getting death threats; does that predate the notoriety?
    - culi 5y ago
      Did you read the article? They make a comic. Their tweet didn't have any other context
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I read the article. The tweet was not a comic, just a tweet. I don't see how that connects to the comic. If they were already known to the hate group, then I think they're using that as an excuse. If it predates the notoriety, then that's different.
        culi 5y ago
        Sorry I misunderstood your comment. It seemed like you weren't sure if the vitriol was due to the tweet itself or some other notoriety. I don't have any more information than you do, but I'm sure you can figure it out based on the date of the tweet
        giantg2 5y ago
        "figure it out based on the date of the tweet" That's what I thought too. But I didn't see a link to the actual comic in the article.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- magneticnorth 5y ago
  As far as I can tell, she never ran a piece on hate groups - she talks about the proud boys leader making a long vitriolic video in response to one of her comics, not that she ever interacted with them.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    My bad. It does intrigue me then, what was the comic that started all this?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    She has a Substack. Which is literally called 'Men Yell At Me'. She's thrown her hat into the realm of public opinion taking sides on issues. This is not a 'random person' so it's at least a tiny bit disingenuous for the author to represent themselves as 'nobody' when their own substack headline trails with 'trying to raise hell'. I would imagine this was a milquetoast tweet that got picked up by the algorithm, or shared in the feeds of dumb trolls. The best way to evaluate how often this happens would be to look at the various tweets of various people and see which one's hit, and why. It might very well be that women are more likely to be victims but I think it's probably more or less even between genders, whereas men are more likely to be trolls. But that's just a guess.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      It's not her substack, this was a guest post on lyz's "Men Yell At Me" substack. Also it's quite hilarious to complain about someone "trying to raise hell" when everyone knows that the other side is constantly spouting rabid anti-Semitism and other hateful memes purely "for teh lulz", of which many examples are provided in the post.
      - jollybean 5y ago
- jollybean 5y ago
  It doesn't matter what you are 'for' or 'against'. Trolling happens for any, even mild opinion, the more popular the voice, the more trolling. That is the essential nature of the trolling which I believe is misrepresented in the thesis.
commandlinefan 5y ago
Actually, the male equivalent here is getting ganged up on and de-platformed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- munk-a 5y ago
  I guess that's inadvertently a good example of how different our experiences on the internet are then. Deplatforming certainly also happens to women - we men just get to dodge the death and other threats.
munk-a 5y ago
I think it's pretty easy to observe this by, instead of looking at the hated public figures, looking at the championed ones. Right and left leaning female public figures still get a lot of vile comments thrown at them and a lot of sexualization from within their "support base". Men hardly receive that at all - we may be attacked by haters for our comments, but simply being a public woman online exposes you to a lot of emotional abuse. Some women certainly avoid it by just not going to those neighborhoods of the internet, but if that neighborhood is somewhere you'd like to go (if, for instance, you like video games) you have to choose between receiving that abuse or just not accessing the same entertainment services as men.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Men are championed or derided for their physical appearances. The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'. We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive. If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist), but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance. I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    > The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. No, it's their gender.
    - jimmygrapes 5y ago
      No it's their lack of affiliation with furrydom. You can always find something if you try.
jollybean 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

If they are against hate groups and ran a piece on them... then yes, I do believe a man would get similar levels of hate.

culi 5y ago
I think that, no matter what hate groups they cover, I find it really hard to see a man getting death threats for tweeting about being annoyed by someone interrupting their workout to comment on their body. I feel like there's a qualitative difference in those two experiences
- giantg2 5y ago
  Is the workout thing why they're getting death threats; does that predate the notoriety?
  - culi 5y ago
    Did you read the article? They make a comic. Their tweet didn't have any other context
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I read the article. The tweet was not a comic, just a tweet. I don't see how that connects to the comic. If they were already known to the hate group, then I think they're using that as an excuse. If it predates the notoriety, then that's different.
      - culi 5y ago
        Sorry I misunderstood your comment. It seemed like you weren't sure if the vitriol was due to the tweet itself or some other notoriety. I don't have any more information than you do, but I'm sure you can figure it out based on the date of the tweet
        giantg2 5y ago
        "figure it out based on the date of the tweet" That's what I thought too. But I didn't see a link to the actual comic in the article.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
magneticnorth 5y ago
As far as I can tell, she never ran a piece on hate groups - she talks about the proud boys leader making a long vitriolic video in response to one of her comics, not that she ever interacted with them.
- giantg2 5y ago
  My bad. It does intrigue me then, what was the comic that started all this?
- jollybean 5y ago
  She has a Substack. Which is literally called 'Men Yell At Me'. She's thrown her hat into the realm of public opinion taking sides on issues. This is not a 'random person' so it's at least a tiny bit disingenuous for the author to represent themselves as 'nobody' when their own substack headline trails with 'trying to raise hell'. I would imagine this was a milquetoast tweet that got picked up by the algorithm, or shared in the feeds of dumb trolls. The best way to evaluate how often this happens would be to look at the various tweets of various people and see which one's hit, and why. It might very well be that women are more likely to be victims but I think it's probably more or less even between genders, whereas men are more likely to be trolls. But that's just a guess.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    It's not her substack, this was a guest post on lyz's "Men Yell At Me" substack. Also it's quite hilarious to complain about someone "trying to raise hell" when everyone knows that the other side is constantly spouting rabid anti-Semitism and other hateful memes purely "for teh lulz", of which many examples are provided in the post.
    - jollybean 5y ago
jollybean 5y ago
It doesn't matter what you are 'for' or 'against'. Trolling happens for any, even mild opinion, the more popular the voice, the more trolling. That is the essential nature of the trolling which I believe is misrepresented in the thesis.

commandlinefan 5y ago

Actually, the male equivalent here is getting ganged up on and de-platformed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
munk-a 5y ago
I guess that's inadvertently a good example of how different our experiences on the internet are then. Deplatforming certainly also happens to women - we men just get to dodge the death and other threats.

munk-a 5y ago

I think it's pretty easy to observe this by, instead of looking at the hated public figures, looking at the championed ones. Right and left leaning female public figures still get a lot of vile comments thrown at them and a lot of sexualization from within their "support base". Men hardly receive that at all - we may be attacked by haters for our comments, but simply being a public woman online exposes you to a lot of emotional abuse. Some women certainly avoid it by just not going to those neighborhoods of the internet, but if that neighborhood is somewhere you'd like to go (if, for instance, you like video games) you have to choose between receiving that abuse or just not accessing the same entertainment services as men.

jollybean 5y ago
Men are championed or derided for their physical appearances. The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'. We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive. If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist), but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance. I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  > The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate. No, it's their gender.
  - jimmygrapes 5y ago
    No it's their lack of affiliation with furrydom. You can always find something if you try.

jollybean 5y ago