4 ms·

Speaking out against being harassed is not "bathing in the outrage". You sound completely biased, as well. I don't trust you as a neutral observer.

chippy 12y ago
I think there's a difference about speaking out about harassment in general and going against the recommendations of the police who should be dealing with a specific threat. I agree though, it's certainly not "bathing in the outrage" at all. Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough? I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?
- scott_s 12y ago
  Who is going against whose recommendations, and in what way? Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.
  - chippy 12y ago
    Ahh, well the presumption is that the Police would say something like "please don't share these threats with the internet, just leave it with us". I would imagine that is what they would say. The logic being that it just gives the harassers more fuel. I'd hope that the police were being sensitive and helpful in this case. I imagine that the police did not give any recommendations about the event, that they neither suggested she cancel or to go ahead. My comment was asking questions about why someone would choose to publicise active threats against their person, assuming that police would have warned against it. I can imagine some scenarios where someone would choose to go against those recommendations - I imagine things must be very stressful and fraught. Perhaps with Twitter, any threats are already public and so there could be no point not sharing them? Perhaps there is greater value in highlighting the online abuse and having a large amount of online support for ones cause than suffering in silence and trusting ones fate to the professionals? I think our online networks are sorely missing effective abuse filters and controls.

chippy 12y ago

I think there's a difference about speaking out about harassment in general and going against the recommendations of the police who should be dealing with a specific threat. I agree though, it's certainly not "bathing in the outrage" at all. Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough? I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?

scott_s 12y ago
Who is going against whose recommendations, and in what way? Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.
- chippy 12y ago
  Ahh, well the presumption is that the Police would say something like "please don't share these threats with the internet, just leave it with us". I would imagine that is what they would say. The logic being that it just gives the harassers more fuel. I'd hope that the police were being sensitive and helpful in this case. I imagine that the police did not give any recommendations about the event, that they neither suggested she cancel or to go ahead. My comment was asking questions about why someone would choose to publicise active threats against their person, assuming that police would have warned against it. I can imagine some scenarios where someone would choose to go against those recommendations - I imagine things must be very stressful and fraught. Perhaps with Twitter, any threats are already public and so there could be no point not sharing them? Perhaps there is greater value in highlighting the online abuse and having a large amount of online support for ones cause than suffering in silence and trusting ones fate to the professionals? I think our online networks are sorely missing effective abuse filters and controls.