6 ms·

Nope, I can see why she did that. First off, this topic attracts the Wrong People as well. By the Wrong People I mean terrifying crazy people who will never le

Nope, I can see why she did that. First off, this topic attracts the Wrong People as well. By the Wrong People I mean terrifying crazy people who will never leave you alone, not merely people with wrong opinions. Second: she's a woman in science on Twitter. The appalling sexist hate she will absolutely trigger by simply speaking up warrants at least throwing the switch so it can't be seen. This is why so many women writing for newspapers now ask for the comments to be switched off on their articles, too. Because it is endless and soul-damaging.

deadbeeves 5y ago
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  > but I can't help but feel if you can't deal with the attention appearing/posting things publicly gets you Deal with it by not being female, maybe? I mean, I think your idea makes sense in principle. But the nature of the attention is not irrelevant: there is good data that shows that women encounter both the lion's share of online abuse, and also much worse abuse on every level than men, even on non-gender-related topics. The raw truth of the world is that women in any sphere of influence but perhaps particularly in science and politics get so much more abuse of so much more vile a nature, that we should probably be forgiving of their wish to ultimately just be able to speak without having it shoved in their faces.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    >Deal with it by not being female, maybe? That would imply that women are inherently more socially inept than men. >there is good data that shows that women encounter both the lion's share of online abuse, and also much worse abuse on every level than men, even on non-gender-related topics. Is there? Such as? I'm not being glib, I'm honestly asking. I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. >perhaps particularly in science and politics get so much more abuse of so much more vile a nature I think you're exaggerating and losing perspective of just how terrible the world is. >we should probably be forgiving of their wish to ultimately just be able to speak without having it shoved in their faces. If you want to, feel free. When someone shuts off others' ability to respond, what it says to me is either that they're not confident enough in their words to defend them (so why did they bother?), or that I should listen to them, but they are important enough not to have to reciprocate that courtesy. Why should I listen in either case?
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      > That would imply that women are inherently more socially inept than men. This is absurd. I'd retract it if I'd said it. > Is there? Such as? I'm not being glib, I'm honestly asking. I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Pick one -- the last two are interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/18/women-on-reality-tv-shows-get-far-more-abuse-online-than-men-study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/18/women-on-rea... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-co... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interactive/2016/jun/27/from-julia-gillard-to-hillary-clinton-online-abuse-of-politicians-around-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interacti... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-analysed-70m-comments-guardian-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-an... > I think you're exaggerating and losing perspective of just how terrible the world is. I think you're being rude.
      - deadbeeves 5y ago
        >I think you're being rude. I'm sorry you think that. I'm not trying to be. Link 1: The article is light on methodology, and in any case it seems to be categorizing as "abuse" conversations between person A and person B about person C, who is not participating in the discussion. I.e. me telling you "I think emperor Hirohito was kind of a wimp" would be abuse, apparently. Link 2: Even worse. It's only counting uses of specific words without regard for context. Just uttering the word "slut" is misogynistic? So my previous sentence is misogynistic? Link 3: I have no tears to shed for any negative attention any politician gets. That's part of the job description. If they can't deal with it they really should have picked a different profession. Link 4: As a statistical data point it's interesting, but one should be careful about what conclusions to draw from it. They only counted blocked comments. We don't really know what those comments contained (although we're invited to assume they were misogynistic and abusive towards the writer). We don't know what the specific topics the articles in question were about. For example, could it be that women tend to write more often about controversial topics, for whatever reason? We don't know if all articles are subjected to the same amount of moderation. If articles A and B have the same number of comments, but B has twice as many blocked comments, and twice as many people moderating it, they might not be so lopsided as it appears. To be clear, I'm not denying that women probably do get more negative attention online. There's probably a fair bit of overlap between being loud and annoying and hating women. I just think these stats are garbage, except for link 4.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  I think there are two reasonable positions that aren’t contradictory: 1) public figures should anticipate public attention; 2) women and other minorities receive order of magnitude more harassment online when they become public figures In this perception it seems reasonable to be a woman in public, anticipate more harassment, and operate in public appropriately. After all, she’s not legally obligated to open her replies (and people can qrt or screenshot if they want to engage).
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    Do they actually? Has this been proven? I know that I'm just supposed to take any anecdotes about race and gender as unquestionable truth, but I just don't.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      If you really care, there are plenty of ways to research now that everyone has the internet. Next time you have this argument, you'll be armed with information.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      You know thanks to your inquiry I did some cursory googling and while it seems women claim to receive about similar amounts of harassment, the nature of the harassment is generally much more focused and experienced as much more distressing than men (for example, women experience more sexual harassment and rape threats online, while men receive more generically offensive or insulting language). I guess in this case the adjustment can be that women can anticipate more rape threats and sexual harassment and act appropriately. Thanks for pushing me to do some more research about it.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    >she’s not legally obligated to open her replies Obviously not. I'm not talking about what's legal or illegal, I'm talking about being courteous by engaging with other's responses to you. Yes, some people will not be courteous back, but by disabling the ability to reply you're shutting everyone out.
- burnished 5y ago
  You also probably have no idea the volume of attention that being openly female gets you on the internet.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    I'm well aware. One chooses how to present oneself. Do you know if I'm a woman? Do you think you don't know by accident? If I want my ideas to be heard they should be the focus of my communication, not any part of my identity.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      That's not a thing that you can do on twitter where your gender is already public. It's not her that would be intentionally entangling her gender with the ideas that she's expressing, it's her that wouldn't be able to escape her gender being entangled with the ideas that she's expressing. I'd venture to say that most racial/ethnic minorities try to stay within the pseudoanonymous assumption that everybody on the internet is a white man as long as possible. If you're posting on the internet as a public person, that's not an option.
  - calumetregion 5y ago
    Why would anyone have "no idea" about this? We're literally surrounded by women - moms, sisters, friends, wives - our entire lives. This is not some secret knowledge that men cannot grasp. Men know the score here, and have even intervened for our sisters or nieces when needed. I see stuff like this all the time online, it's absurd. Who do you think I spend most of my time with? Women. I came from a woman.
    - burnished 5y ago
      Because they don't have the lived experience? Go give it a try. Its an eye-opener.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  It’s fantastic performance art to be posting this sentiment to a public forum using an anonymous account you just created.
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    Are you accusing me of hypocrisy? The way to avoid negative attention is by being anonymous. People who specifically avoid being anonymous want to have a reputation. When they turn around and moan about being insulted they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: they want only the positive attention attached to their identity and none of the negative attention. That's just not how the world works.

deadbeeves 5y ago

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> but I can't help but feel if you can't deal with the attention appearing/posting things publicly gets you Deal with it by not being female, maybe? I mean, I think your idea makes sense in principle. But the nature of the attention is not irrelevant: there is good data that shows that women encounter both the lion's share of online abuse, and also much worse abuse on every level than men, even on non-gender-related topics. The raw truth of the world is that women in any sphere of influence but perhaps particularly in science and politics get so much more abuse of so much more vile a nature, that we should probably be forgiving of their wish to ultimately just be able to speak without having it shoved in their faces.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  >Deal with it by not being female, maybe? That would imply that women are inherently more socially inept than men. >there is good data that shows that women encounter both the lion's share of online abuse, and also much worse abuse on every level than men, even on non-gender-related topics. Is there? Such as? I'm not being glib, I'm honestly asking. I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. >perhaps particularly in science and politics get so much more abuse of so much more vile a nature I think you're exaggerating and losing perspective of just how terrible the world is. >we should probably be forgiving of their wish to ultimately just be able to speak without having it shoved in their faces. If you want to, feel free. When someone shuts off others' ability to respond, what it says to me is either that they're not confident enough in their words to defend them (so why did they bother?), or that I should listen to them, but they are important enough not to have to reciprocate that courtesy. Why should I listen in either case?
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    > That would imply that women are inherently more socially inept than men. This is absurd. I'd retract it if I'd said it. > Is there? Such as? I'm not being glib, I'm honestly asking. I doubt it, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. Pick one -- the last two are interesting. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/18/women-on-reality-tv-shows-get-far-more-abuse-online-than-men-study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/18/women-on-rea... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-cooper-leads-cross-party-campaign-against-online-abuse https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/25/yvette-co... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interactive/2016/jun/27/from-julia-gillard-to-hillary-clinton-online-abuse-of-politicians-around-the-world https://www.theguardian.com/technology/datablog/ng-interacti... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-side-of-guardian-comments https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/the-dark-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-analysed-70m-comments-guardian-website https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/12/how-we-an... > I think you're exaggerating and losing perspective of just how terrible the world is. I think you're being rude.
    - deadbeeves 5y ago
      >I think you're being rude. I'm sorry you think that. I'm not trying to be. Link 1: The article is light on methodology, and in any case it seems to be categorizing as "abuse" conversations between person A and person B about person C, who is not participating in the discussion. I.e. me telling you "I think emperor Hirohito was kind of a wimp" would be abuse, apparently. Link 2: Even worse. It's only counting uses of specific words without regard for context. Just uttering the word "slut" is misogynistic? So my previous sentence is misogynistic? Link 3: I have no tears to shed for any negative attention any politician gets. That's part of the job description. If they can't deal with it they really should have picked a different profession. Link 4: As a statistical data point it's interesting, but one should be careful about what conclusions to draw from it. They only counted blocked comments. We don't really know what those comments contained (although we're invited to assume they were misogynistic and abusive towards the writer). We don't know what the specific topics the articles in question were about. For example, could it be that women tend to write more often about controversial topics, for whatever reason? We don't know if all articles are subjected to the same amount of moderation. If articles A and B have the same number of comments, but B has twice as many blocked comments, and twice as many people moderating it, they might not be so lopsided as it appears. To be clear, I'm not denying that women probably do get more negative attention online. There's probably a fair bit of overlap between being loud and annoying and hating women. I just think these stats are garbage, except for link 4.
SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
I think there are two reasonable positions that aren’t contradictory: 1) public figures should anticipate public attention; 2) women and other minorities receive order of magnitude more harassment online when they become public figures In this perception it seems reasonable to be a woman in public, anticipate more harassment, and operate in public appropriately. After all, she’s not legally obligated to open her replies (and people can qrt or screenshot if they want to engage).
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Do they actually? Has this been proven? I know that I'm just supposed to take any anecdotes about race and gender as unquestionable truth, but I just don't.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    If you really care, there are plenty of ways to research now that everyone has the internet. Next time you have this argument, you'll be armed with information.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    You know thanks to your inquiry I did some cursory googling and while it seems women claim to receive about similar amounts of harassment, the nature of the harassment is generally much more focused and experienced as much more distressing than men (for example, women experience more sexual harassment and rape threats online, while men receive more generically offensive or insulting language). I guess in this case the adjustment can be that women can anticipate more rape threats and sexual harassment and act appropriately. Thanks for pushing me to do some more research about it.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  >she’s not legally obligated to open her replies Obviously not. I'm not talking about what's legal or illegal, I'm talking about being courteous by engaging with other's responses to you. Yes, some people will not be courteous back, but by disabling the ability to reply you're shutting everyone out.
burnished 5y ago
You also probably have no idea the volume of attention that being openly female gets you on the internet.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  I'm well aware. One chooses how to present oneself. Do you know if I'm a woman? Do you think you don't know by accident? If I want my ideas to be heard they should be the focus of my communication, not any part of my identity.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    That's not a thing that you can do on twitter where your gender is already public. It's not her that would be intentionally entangling her gender with the ideas that she's expressing, it's her that wouldn't be able to escape her gender being entangled with the ideas that she's expressing. I'd venture to say that most racial/ethnic minorities try to stay within the pseudoanonymous assumption that everybody on the internet is a white man as long as possible. If you're posting on the internet as a public person, that's not an option.
- calumetregion 5y ago
  Why would anyone have "no idea" about this? We're literally surrounded by women - moms, sisters, friends, wives - our entire lives. This is not some secret knowledge that men cannot grasp. Men know the score here, and have even intervened for our sisters or nieces when needed. I see stuff like this all the time online, it's absurd. Who do you think I spend most of my time with? Women. I came from a woman.
  - burnished 5y ago
    Because they don't have the lived experience? Go give it a try. Its an eye-opener.
snowwrestler 5y ago
It’s fantastic performance art to be posting this sentiment to a public forum using an anonymous account you just created.
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  Are you accusing me of hypocrisy? The way to avoid negative attention is by being anonymous. People who specifically avoid being anonymous want to have a reputation. When they turn around and moan about being insulted they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: they want only the positive attention attached to their identity and none of the negative attention. That's just not how the world works.