3 ms·

>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 e

>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.

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.