4 ms·

I wonder if the author also refuses to go to bars, because there have been people beaten at or abducted from them, or drive a car, because there have been cases

I wonder if the author also refuses to go to bars, because there have been people beaten at or abducted from them, or drive a car, because there have been cases of road rage, or avoid churches because they have been boarded and burned, or schools because there have been shootings, or... People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. This is just more shoddy, fear-based 'journalism' piggy-backing on a scare wave. It does nothing to improve people's understanding of their privacy settings and options, and does everything to exploit a trend for more page views.

batista 15y ago
>I wonder if the author also refuses to go to bars, because there have been people beaten at or abducted from them, or drive a car, because there have been cases of road rage, or avoid churches because they have been boarded and burned, or schools because there have been shootings, or... Do you use this "take-it-to-the-extreme" for every argument you hear? Most of the times, arguments are meant to be considered at the level at which they are told and for the situations for which they are told. For example, when one tells you to wear something warm when outside is snowing, he doesn't mean you should wear 20 overcoats and a special thermal suite. So, to avoid schools because "there have been shootings" and such, is not at all like "avoid declaring your exact location to the whole world especially now with the availability of pervert-targeted-apps like Girls Around Me". For one, the statistics on rapes and sexual assaults VS school shootings don't favor your argument in the least.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Do you use this "take-it-to-the-extreme" for every argument you hear? I didn't, and I don't know why you think that I did. For one, the statistics on rapes and sexual assaults VS school shootings don't favor your argument in the least. It would be awesome if the people making this claim supplied some of these statistics.
tesseractive 15y ago
> People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. Women are constantly trying to figure out how much risk is attached to behaviors that men take for granted, and alter their behavior accordingly. It's all fine and well to say not to worry about "imagined scenarios" involving sociopaths, but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked and received persistent death threats just for having a blog online and being only moderately well known. And in the case of something like check ins, any stalker wouldn't just have your email to send threats to, they would have your physical location. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of. Wow, that's sexist. One cannot assess risk unless one is within the target category? I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". I'm guessing that, as usual, women should be most wary of those to whom they're closest.
  - batista 15y ago
    >You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Yeah, so how about basing them on statistics? Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? >I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Coddled and sheltered no, but they should be vigilant about them. Are there as many street rape attacks on men? The numbers don't indicate so at all (not to mention that lots (most?) men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant --except if they consider the woman ugly). >Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". Yes, that just leaves the other 36%. And that's on homicide. How about sexual assault? Even with similar or worse numbers, being most likely attacked by people you know is orthogonal to declaring your whereabouts. If the raper is that kid down the block of your house that's obsessed with you, does he also have to know that at 12:34 Friday night you are at that remote area?

batista 15y ago

>I wonder if the author also refuses to go to bars, because there have been people beaten at or abducted from them, or drive a car, because there have been cases of road rage, or avoid churches because they have been boarded and burned, or schools because there have been shootings, or... Do you use this "take-it-to-the-extreme" for every argument you hear? Most of the times, arguments are meant to be considered at the level at which they are told and for the situations for which they are told. For example, when one tells you to wear something warm when outside is snowing, he doesn't mean you should wear 20 overcoats and a special thermal suite. So, to avoid schools because "there have been shootings" and such, is not at all like "avoid declaring your exact location to the whole world especially now with the availability of pervert-targeted-apps like Girls Around Me". For one, the statistics on rapes and sexual assaults VS school shootings don't favor your argument in the least.

georgieporgie 15y ago
Do you use this "take-it-to-the-extreme" for every argument you hear? I didn't, and I don't know why you think that I did. For one, the statistics on rapes and sexual assaults VS school shootings don't favor your argument in the least. It would be awesome if the people making this claim supplied some of these statistics.

tesseractive 15y ago

> People shouldn't base their lives and decisions around imagined scenarios that involve sociopaths. Women are constantly trying to figure out how much risk is attached to behaviors that men take for granted, and alter their behavior accordingly. It's all fine and well to say not to worry about "imagined scenarios" involving sociopaths, but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked and received persistent death threats just for having a blog online and being only moderately well known. And in the case of something like check ins, any stalker wouldn't just have your email to send threats to, they would have your physical location. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of.

georgieporgie 15y ago
but there are many real life stories of women who have been stalked You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Unless you are a woman, I would suggest that you may not have the best perspective from which to tell other women what they should and should not be afraid of. Wow, that's sexist. One cannot assess risk unless one is within the target category? I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". I'm guessing that, as usual, women should be most wary of those to whom they're closest.
- batista 15y ago
  >You're referencing scary anecdotes to refute my claim that you shouldn't base decisions on scary anecdotes. Yeah, so how about basing them on statistics? Like the one that says that 1 in 4 women was sexually assaulted? >I bet you wouldn't be saying that to me if I took the more sexist and popular view that women need to be coddled and sheltered from the cruel, strange men on the streets. Coddled and sheltered no, but they should be vigilant about them. Are there as many street rape attacks on men? The numbers don't indicate so at all (not to mention that lots (most?) men wouldn't even consider a sexual attack by a woman unpleasant --except if they consider the woman ugly). >Here's a random tidbit from a web search: "Females are generally murdered by people they know. In 64% of female homicide cases in 2007, females were killed by a family member or intimate partner". Yes, that just leaves the other 36%. And that's on homicide. How about sexual assault? Even with similar or worse numbers, being most likely attacked by people you know is orthogonal to declaring your whereabouts. If the raper is that kid down the block of your house that's obsessed with you, does he also have to know that at 12:34 Friday night you are at that remote area?