3 ms·

At the same time, it's very hard to feel sorry for her if she built her career on it. And it's very hard to take the very real problem serious if you got peopl

by zyx321 12y ago

At the same time, it's very hard to feel sorry for her if she built her career on it. And it's very hard to take the very real problem serious if you got people like Sarkeesian (and Zoe Quinn, and Leigh Alexander, and so forth) poisoning the discussion. They are not harassed because of who they are. They are harassed because of what they say, and what they do. Now I'm not saying that that's okay to threaten someone over their opinion, but there's a world of a difference between hating the political agenda a woman (or predominantly female group) is pushing and misogyny. At some point, word like "misogynist" lose all meaning and become just insults that you either ignore or worse, take as a signal to discard the opinion of anyone who uses them wholesale.

brazzy 12y ago
When the action is harassment of the form described in the article, then that is misogyny, no matter what the victim did. I'd say that the people who issue these threats are poisoning the discussion a whole lot more than someone who argues in bad faith. And in the same vein, while it's annoying and hurts the cause of equality that some feminists will call anyone a misogynist who disagrees with their particular radical form of feminism, if you consider that a worse problem and spend more attention on it than on people who tweet "I’ll go to your flat and cut your fucking head off you inbred whore.", then you really are part of the problem and giving those feminists too much cause.
- zyx321 12y ago
  Then I am part of the problem, I guess? Because yes, I would argue that we shouldn't be paying attention to the trolls. They aren't poisoning the discussion because they aren't part of the discussion. They are trying to disrupt it from the outside, but any sort of moderated community they will be kicked out whenever they show up. I would also argue that it might be worth differentiating between using misogynist behavior/rhetoric to attack a woman who you disagree with ideologically vs the sort of misogynist ideology that is the focus of the article. Misogyny as a means vs misogyny as an end, if you will.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    The problem is that the "trolls" are quite often not, in fact, kicked off. Their death and rape threats are called "humor" and people often protest the kicking-off as censorship. And that's not even mentioning the effect on the victims. Have you ever had to deal with a constant stream of people describing how they're going to torture and kill you in graphic detail? They are VERY MUCH poisoning the discussion, and we often let them. And I really, really don't see any difference whatsoever between the two things you mention in your last paragraph. Definitely none.

by zyx321 12y ago

brazzy 12y ago

When the action is harassment of the form described in the article, then that is misogyny, no matter what the victim did. I'd say that the people who issue these threats are poisoning the discussion a whole lot more than someone who argues in bad faith. And in the same vein, while it's annoying and hurts the cause of equality that some feminists will call anyone a misogynist who disagrees with their particular radical form of feminism, if you consider that a worse problem and spend more attention on it than on people who tweet "I’ll go to your flat and cut your fucking head off you inbred whore.", then you really are part of the problem and giving those feminists too much cause.

zyx321 12y ago
Then I am part of the problem, I guess? Because yes, I would argue that we shouldn't be paying attention to the trolls. They aren't poisoning the discussion because they aren't part of the discussion. They are trying to disrupt it from the outside, but any sort of moderated community they will be kicked out whenever they show up. I would also argue that it might be worth differentiating between using misogynist behavior/rhetoric to attack a woman who you disagree with ideologically vs the sort of misogynist ideology that is the focus of the article. Misogyny as a means vs misogyny as an end, if you will.
- brazzy 12y ago
  The problem is that the "trolls" are quite often not, in fact, kicked off. Their death and rape threats are called "humor" and people often protest the kicking-off as censorship. And that's not even mentioning the effect on the victims. Have you ever had to deal with a constant stream of people describing how they're going to torture and kill you in graphic detail? They are VERY MUCH poisoning the discussion, and we often let them. And I really, really don't see any difference whatsoever between the two things you mention in your last paragraph. Definitely none.