2 ms·

So when prominent women receive specific death threats (see links below), they're just supposed to delete them? I don't understand why you think this isn't rele

So when prominent women receive specific death threats (see links below), they're just supposed to delete them? I don't understand why you think this isn't relevant; you said "just grow a thick skin" and I'm attempting to show why it's much more complicated than that. https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/506307716558495744 https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/506307716558495744 http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindness-weev-and-the-cult-of-the-angry-young-man http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/12/4693710/the-end-of-kindnes... >But disappear is exactly what she did next. Andrew "weev" Auernheimer, a well-known provocateur, hacker, and anti-Semite, circulated her home address and Social Security number online. He also made false statements about her being a battered wife and a former prostitute. Not only did Sierra find herself a target for identity theft, but all the people who had threatened to brutally rape and kill her now knew where she lived.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
I agree that for serious threats of violence, contacting the police or buying a gun is the correct response. For personal attacks/etc, including ones that "attack your core identity" (whatever that means), I do believe that a thick skin is the right answer. I was implicitly (though not explicitly) describing the latter situation. You've provided no argument why that isn't the case apart from "won't someone think of the women" (ala Helen Lovejoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg ).