Support NeoGAF

[scoobidoo112]

Let me turn that around for you:

I don't know whether it's sad or not that I get most of my "news" from John Oliver. For some people it might seem weird that he's making jokes talking about serious issues, but I think mixing comedy with seriousness is great. It points out the absurdity of some of these situations when you can be sarcastic or make non-offensive joke about it.

Maybe it's my low faith in society, but if this was just a regular news segment I don't think most people would grasp how stupid it is that you need to send people naked pictures in order to stop people from seeing your naked pictures.

I think there were some studies done that showed that audiences of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were actually the most well informed in America, so I guess bad in regards to "legit" news media, who apparently suck but good for you for finding proper news sources.

 

[OldMuffin]

That's ok and you don't have to. But that does not excuse the attacks she and a lot of other women are going through.

Didn't say it does mate, I find it disgusting as well. Hell, I'm technically from a third world country, and it just baffles me how backwards thinking some people are, its still all about that male dominanant society, rather than everyone having a fair shot.

 

[Bert]

I find it really amusing that on my work internet connection (proxy through GB) it's not available, but on my regular internet connection (Romania) it is.
What's up with the restrictions?

I guess they've sold the UK rights and not the Romanian ones.

Bloody Romanians coming over here with their access to a better quality Internet and their high expectations (sorry that'll only be funny if you read British media)

 

[marrec]

Great segment by John here that leaves me feeling conflicted.

On the one hand, I really love the fact that gamergate has proved out John's points by shitting up the YouTube comments and organizing a mass downvote campaign.

On the other hand, gamergate has made gamers look WORSE than Revenge Porn by being the only people on earth who could disagree with this completely reasonable video segment.

 

[Bert]

Surely based on the quote you're responding to (focus on the greatest need) he should be focusing on the house that's on fire?

Not sure you or the cartoonist understand the point.

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm sorry but I mean to let this off my chest, I want equality, but I cannot take Anita serious, because she seems less about equality and more about female dominance.

Feminism is actually pro-men too, if you actually care to learn. It's not about female dominance.

My only criticism of this video is how it (as with almost all news coverage on this issue) portrays online harassment as being purely a women's issue

Except right in the video they show male harassment numbers

(and males being the default offenders), when it is my opinion that, much like with the subjects of rape and domestic abuse, it is a people's issue, and that the subject should be spoken off regardless of gender, race, sexuality or religion. Things like these shouldn't become some sort of competition between the sexes in order to see "who has it worse" but rather be open to anyone who has had those terrible experiences so they can be heard and get help.

The only one turning it into a competition is you.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Surely based on the quote you're responding to (focus on the greatest need) he should be focusing on the house that's on fire?

Not sure you or the cartoonist understand the point.

he's agreeing with the person he quoted by way of sharing an amusing illustrated summary of the situation

 

[stump sock]

Last Week Tonight ‏@LastWeekTonight 9h9 hours ago
We made this gif so you don't have to. Deploy it as you will...

https://twitter.com/LastWeekTonight/status/612822978338947072

Spoiler

except that twitter turns gifs into videos

 

[Hot Coldman]

https://twitter.com/LastWeekTonight/status/612822978338947072

Spoiler

except that twitter turns gifs into videos

I need this as an actual .gif so badly.

 

[Metal B]

Edit: Sorry, just misinterpreted something.

 

[Glitchesarecool]

I need this as an actual .gif so badly.

Gfycat.

Also the comments section is hilarious and HBO won't give a shit about them.

 

[petethepanda]

YouTube comments going pretty much as expected lol

 

[Zeouterlimits]

The video already has more comments than the FIFA video from 3 weeks ago that has like 3x / 4x times the views.

 

[marrec]

The video already has more comments than the FIFA video from 3 weeks ago that has like 3x / 4x times the views.

I wonder how long before someone tries to pin all the negative comments and downvotes on a conspiracy run by Anita herself.

*looks at watch*

 

[bishoptl]

I'm sorry but I mean to let this off my chest, I want equality, but I cannot take Anita serious, because she seems less about equality and more about female dominance.

This is going to be one of those threads, isn't it?

 

[qizah]

The comments on the video reflect exactly the point he's making.

So sad.

 

[bishoptl]

Let me turn that around for you:

.

If you think for one minute that the vitriol is somehow equivalent, you're either being disingenuous or naive. I know where my money lies.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I wonder how long before someone tries to pin all the negative comments and downvotes on a conspiracy run by Anita herself.

*looks at watch*

Well after she personally hung those posters up outside E3 as part of a false flag campaign I wouldn't put it beyond her to create 6000 Google accounts to thumbs down Oliver's video.

Spoiler

Shouldn't need to be said but this was sarcasm.

 

[FlutterPuffs]

Well after she personally hung those posters up outside E3 as part of a false flag campaign I wouldn't put it beyond her to create 6000 Google accounts to thumbs down Oliver's video.

Spoiler

Shouldn't need to be said but this was sarcasm.

I understand, but to be honest let down the spoiler tags mate.

Better to not let your sarcasm to be turned into bait.

 

[Hot Coldman]

Gfycat.

Also the comments section is hilarious and HBO won't give a shit about them.

yaaaaaay <3

 

[Rengoku]

Except right in the video they show male harassment numbers.

It's odd that they chose to take a study from 2006, that focused purely on harassment through IRC chatrooms.

Here's a more recent one from October 2014, that covers more than simply IRC chatrooms:

"Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

 

[marrec]

If you think for one minute that the vitriol is somehow equivalent, you're either being disingenuous or naive. I know where my money lies.

Which is, once again, the point of the segment. John focuses only a bit of his time on the overall culture of harassment against women, instead devoting much of the segment to Revenge Porn and the ridiculous way we treat women who've been victimised by that "industry".

And it is an industry, making billions of dollars every year despite recent efforts to crack down on it.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that women bear the awful brunt of the revenge porn industry? There shouldn't be. The same should be said of harassment in general.

Yes, men get harassed sometimes too, but the harassment is often lighter in tone, less specific, and less personal. Its ridiculous that this even needs to be said.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Such insightful responses. Is this what people do here in these kinds of threads? Just continue to make fun of anyone with some kind of different opinion whilst repeating the same argument to each other all the time? I don't think my comment was in any way unreasonable or disrespectful, shame that doesn't go the other way around as well.

I have trouble with that number. Pew numbers show something else. But like I said, I think the numbers, right or wrong, don't matter, as this is a people's issue and it should be talked about as such. Nobody, regardless of sexuality, gender, race or religion should feel unwelcome to a discussion or made felt like their experiences aren't valid somehow.

It's because your opinion isn't conducive to discussion. The summary of "But what about men?" is an apt description of your overall point. And the thing is, talking about and working towards a solution for addressing the much, much larger issue of women's online harassment does not explicitly exclude the same issues men face online. But your point does make an effort to distract and remove the largest component of the largest subset of online harassment - sex. It's analogous to saying that police brutality has nothing to do with race because 'white people too!', when the reality is, while that's true, racial biases are definitely at the forefront of the issue and are more poignant to the topic.

Additionally, your polls include everything from 'offensive language' to 'physical threats', which men face in near equal proportions to women. Two areas that, while not unimportant, are significantly less dangerous and harmful than actual stalking and sexual violence. The numbers quoted on the show are that. Women get the overwhelming majority (~96%) of sexually threatening online harassment. The show segment was also predominantly about revenge porn, of which women are again the overwhelming majority.

So the reason your comments, and those like them, are met with such disdain is that they are largely irrelevant to the actual topic. And the explicit inclusion or exclusion of men is completely irrelevant to a healthy discussion about the topic of online harassment - specifically of a sexual nature - while also being the defensive mantra of those that would perpetuate this exact kind of harassment in the first place.

 

[marrec]

It's odd that they chose to take a study from 2006, that focused purely on harassment through IRC chatrooms.

Here's a more recent one from October 2014, that covers more than simply IRC chatrooms:

"Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Intentionally excluding the context of this well known Pew Poll to seem like men face the worst harassment?

Why, I've never seen that before!

Wait, no I have, in VERY certain circles.

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels: 26% of these young women have been stalked online, and 25% were the target of online sexual harassment.

Men get called names a lot, WOMEN GET FUCKING STALKED A LOT.

Jesus christ.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It's odd that they chose to take a study from 2006, that focused purely on harassment through IRC chatrooms.

Here's a more recent one from October 2014, that covers more than simply IRC chatrooms:

"Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Already posted on the last page. If you are going to take quotes from it, I think this one is more relevant:

Young women, those 18-24, experience certain severe types of harassment at disproportionately high levels:

 

[NoblesseOblige]

"Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats."
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

Since we're in the gaming forum let's stick to the context. From the source you linked:

Just look how Online gaming compares to the other areas on the web. 44% feel men are more welcomed whereas a measly 3% feel women are welcomed. This is just further evidence that the gaming community has a serious gender issue.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I have trouble with that number. Pew numbers show something else. But like I said, I think the numbers, right or wrong, don't matter, as this is a people's issue and it should be talked about as such. Nobody, regardless of sexuality, gender, race or religion should feel unwelcome to a discussion or made felt like their experiences aren't valid somehow.

Hey someone showed me the exact same study, making the exact same point to me on YT earlier.

I'm still confused how this can be interpreted as an outright "See? men have it worse" when the most disturbing types of harassment seem extremely women-oriented.

(like stalking is the really frightening one here.)

 

[Nosgoroth]

Gfycat.

Also the comments section is hilarious and HBO won't give a shit about them.

Defiant Beneficial American lobster indeed.

 

[marrec]

For real though when I first watching Last Week Tonight on my 55" HD TV the thing that stood out to me the most were his spider hands.

*male harassment numbers tick up a percentage point*

 

[Dead Man Typing]

I look forward to next week's follow up piece when they examine the comments on the youtube video from this week's show.

I didn't realise this was on Sky Atlantic, will watch there on Wednesday.

 

[Tye The Czar]

HaterGate. That's what I call them.

They love harping on about how parking on about how those dirty feminists, Tumblrinas & Social Justice Warriors will attack anyone with a different opinion. Then they themselves go to downvote any videos with the slightest hint of criticism.

Who's the triggered ones now?

 

[Robaperas]

Colin Hanks AND Rob Huebel, great!

As for the topic, I can't even imagine how can a victim feel with that kind and quantity of harassment, I just can't fathom it; I just hope politicians actually DO something about it, and that most people stop the victim blaming shenanigans.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

Just look how Online gaming compares to the other areas on the web. 44% feel men are more welcomed whereas a measly 3% feel women are welcomed. This is just further evidence that the gaming community has a serious gender issue.

Yep. It's not fun to have a hobby that's basically a sausage party. How stupid does one have to be to not see this?

 

[scoobidoo112]

If you think for one minute that the vitriol is somehow equivalent, you're either being disingenuous or naive. I know where my money lies.

I never said they were equal in numbers, just that both sides face equally valid problems and that they should all be included in the discussion and a search for solutions. Again, I opened my first post by saying these kinds of problems shouldn't become some sort of competition. I think that it is more productive, more unifying and more logical to include everyone that suffers from harassment, rape or domestic abuse in these kinds of discussions and news segments, rather than only focusing on one specific gender.

I really don't understand why a simple statement like "let's recognize and include everyone who is suffering" is deemed so controversial here. How is it a good thing to measure the amount of suffering among different population groups, pick the most affected group and then proceed to only help them and ignore everyone else, rather than unifying people by recognizing that, regardless of percentages, we can all experience the same pain and face the same issues, to which we can all, together, find solutions. How does saying "men and women" or "everyone" instead of "women" negatively affect this search for solutions?

 

[foltzie1]

If you think for one minute that the vitriol is somehow equivalent, you're either being disingenuous or naive. I know where my money lies.

I never said they were equal in numbers, just that both sides face equally valid problems and that they should all be included in the discussion and a search for solutions. Again, I opened my first post by saying these kinds of problems shouldn't become some sort of competition. I think that it is more productive, more unifying and more logical to include everyone that suffers from harassment, rape or domestic abuse in these kinds of discussions and news segments, rather than only focusing on one specific gender.

I really don't understand why a simple statement like "let's recognize and include everyone who is suffering" is deemed so controversial here. How is it a good thing to measure the amount of suffering among different population groups, pick the most affected group and then proceed to only help them and ignore everyone else, rather than unifying people by recognizing that, regardless of percentages, we can all experience the same pain and face the same issues, to which we can all, together, find solutions. How does saying "men and women" or "everyone" instead of "women" negatively affect this search for solutions?

Hence the statement that you are being disingenuous or naive.

I'm not aware of the litany of male revenge porn sites, or men who get threats in anything resembling the volumes of Anita or any of the women highlighted in the story, or the fact that police and media tend to blame the victim in these types of cases moreso than any other crime (including it seems rape).

I know you keep bleating that you arent claiming the numbers are similar, but the actual harassment isnt either and you know that.

You do not need revenge porn laws to protect men, because almost certainly men arent the victims of revenge porn. Quick note though, if such a law is passed it would be gender agnostic, so WINNER!

So whatever platitude you are espousing is lost in the drivel, I could guess that perhaps you are referring to SWATing or some other action that tends to break more towards guys as an online harassment tactic, but we really shouldnt have to guess what you think your argument is should we?

So again, are you being disingenuous or naive?

 

[FlutterPuffs]

I never said they were equal in numbers, just that both sides face equally valid problems and that they should all be included in the discussion and a search for solutions. Again, I opened my first post by saying these kinds of problems shouldn't become some sort of competition. I think that it is more productive, more unifying and more logical to include everyone that suffers from harassment, rape or domestic abuse in these kinds of discussions and news segments, rather than only focusing on one specific gender.

I really don't understand why a simple statement like "let's recognize and include everyone who is suffering" is deemed so controversial here. How is it a good thing to measure the amount of suffering among different population groups, pick the most affected group and then proceed to only help them and ignore everyone else, rather than unifying people by recognizing that, regardless of percentages, we can all experience the same pain and face the same issues, to which we can all, together, find solutions. How does saying "men and women" or "everyone" instead of "women" negatively affect this search for solutions?

I did some reading during the rise of the gamergate fiasco and it's disturbing at how much vitriol, hate, or death threats female online users get. They do need the shoutout because apparently, there are still many who think harrassing them online is harmless.

This is why I don't really mind if the discussions is often focused on this issue, considering how disproportionate it is seeing that females are 50% of the whole human population but are still treated like shit in a lot of cases.

 

[ScatheZombie]

I never said they were equal in numbers, just that both sides face equally valid problems and that they should all be included in the discussion and a search for solutions. Again, I opened my first post by saying these kinds of problems shouldn't become some sort of competition. I think that it is more productive, more unifying and more logical to include everyone that suffers from harassment, rape or domestic abuse in these kinds of discussions and news segments, rather than only focusing on one specific gender.

I really don't understand why a simple statement like "let's recognize and include everyone who is suffering" is deemed so controversial here. How is it a good thing to measure the amount of suffering among different population groups, pick the most affected group and then proceed to only help them and ignore everyone else, rather than unifying people by recognizing that, regardless of percentages, we can all experience the same pain and face the same issues, to which we can all, together, find solutions. How does saying "men and women" or "everyone" instead of "women" negatively affect this search for solutions?

I've already explained this to you.

You did not say the numbers were equal. You simply dropped in a link to a pew poll that referenced some skewed numbers in favor of your argument, without context, while ignoring that said poll actually reinforces the estimation you initially took offense with. That's all.

I really feel like you only looked at the title of the video, which is simply "Online Harassment", and didn't actually watch it, because it is almost entirely about online sexual harassment and that is directed almost entirely and specifically at women.

And the reason focus is necessary here, is that a lack of focus - your repeated mantra of 'it's a people problem' - intentionally distracts and obfuscates the number one factor in the vast majority of said harassment; sex and gender. That's the issue most people will take offense with. You are basically saying that if you can't solve the problem for 100% of people, there's no point in solving it for 96% of them. You are saying that there's no need to focus on solving 96% of the worst, most targeted, most aggressive, and most potentially damaging harassment if you aren't willing to also focus on every other form of harassment.

It's either an incredibly naive or incredibly disingenuous point to make.

 

[Happy-Bunny]

I don't know whether it's sad or not that I get most of my "news" from John Oliver. For some people it might seem weird that he's making jokes talking about serious issues, but I think mixing comedy with seriousness is great. It points out the absurdity of some of these situations when you can be sarcastic or make non-offensive joke about it.

Maybe it's my low faith in society, but if this was just a regular news segment I don't think most people would grasp how stupid it is that you need to send people naked pictures in order to stop people from seeing your naked pictures.

It's sad :/ you should watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l76IjT6Guaw

 

[foltzie1]

I don't know whether it's sad or not that I get most of my "news" from John Oliver. For some people it might seem weird that he's making jokes talking about serious issues, but I think mixing comedy with seriousness is great. It points out the absurdity of some of these situations when you can be sarcastic or make non-offensive joke about it.

Maybe it's my low faith in society, but if this was just a regular news segment I don't think most people would grasp how stupid it is that you need to send people naked pictures in order to stop people from seeing your naked pictures.

Why is it sad? Comedy has always been an excellent vehicle to spread information and ideas.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The internet, now allowing every idiot you've ever known talk to everyone at the same time.

Pretty much this, lol. With anonymity I might add. Toxic mix.

 

[KaYotiX]

This episode was so on point. Great show as always.

Yup, love the writing on that show.

Also WTF at the comments, shows 45 secs of gamer gate stuff and that's all they focus on?

This world....

 

[PillarEN]

Still, I'm not sending pics of my penis to anyone because we all know what happened to Brett Favre. This stuff gets out and that's the reality of the internet even if I don't like it.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

It's sad :/ you should watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l76IjT6Guaw

Ah Newswipe..

 

[Delusibeta]

I find it really amusing that on my work internet connection (proxy through GB) it's not available, but on my regular internet connection (Romania) it is.
What's up with the restrictions?

Licence holder in the UK (Sky) says no to the YouTube uploads, essentially

Pretty much this, lol. With anonymity I might add. Toxic mix.

If there's one thing that Facebook Comments has definitively proven, anonymity doesn't really matter when it comes to toxicity..

 

[Neoriceisgood]

because we all know what happened to Brett Favre.

... I sure don't. I don't even know who that is.

 

[PillarEN]

... I sure don't. I don't even know who that is.

He was a well known American Football player. Sent a dick pick to a female reporter. Dick pick was online sometime later. Now everyone makes fun of his small penis.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

The start was cringeworthy. Mostly because I feel I was watching a report of the Internet made 6 years ago or more.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If there's one thing that Facebook Comments has definitively proven, anonymity doesn't really matter when it comes to toxicity..

True, true, I will give you that as well.

 

[PillarEN]

True, true, I will give you that as well.

But this part blows my mind. It's like the people who don't care even if their names are attached to certain comments have no ambition in life. As if they are satisfied where they are at and that's all their life will be. Some life where they will never attempt to be someone who would be hurt by such comments in a potential job or position. Their lives are simply good enough where they can say this and don't plan on advancing. Weird.
Even if I was seething full of hatred I would not make such comments because I hope to make something of myself and know that such comments would be detrimental to that.

Edit: Not talking about nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones and Bill O'Reilly, etc. who fit what they do or celebrities who have already established themselves and are too big to fall. Just average blokes.

 

[lamaroo]

"I'm a feminist" is the new "I have black friends".