Support NeoGAF

[Dali]

Eh it goes both ways. We're derided for either not being sexy enough or if a woman is indeed eye candy, probably being a bimbo who doesn't know shit and sleeps her way to the top.

Oh hey Olivia Munn thread.

I was referring specifically to the small passage Copernicus quoted. The author was clearly saying people think hot women know their shit, when I, like Copernicus, feel hot women's credentials, expertise, or knowledge of a topic is questioned much more than that of a women of less remarkable looks.

 

[Devolution]

I guess the issue though is when the trolling or flaming or whatever you want to call it gets personal and threats of violence enter the fray. That's when it crosses a line. Can say ignore the trolls all you want but those women are getting mass emails of that sort.

 

[Platy]

Freedom of speech

DEAL WITH IT

she is so u mad jelly butt pain....

...

 

[ronito]

Yeah and I'd like to have commercials that depict dads/boyfriends/husbands as stupid and lazy stop.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Oh look. Another group of people using "trolling" incorrectly.

 

[Imperial Hot]

Didn't read it because she's a woman.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

...

This is staggeringly accurate.

 

[TommyT]

AN art.

Hook, line, and sinker...

 

[leadbelly]

Forgive me for thinking that woman's 'oppression' these days is exaggerated. I just don't really see things the same way some women do. There are women who are scientists, politicians, authors, doctors, pretty much all walks of life.

In terms of sexual objectification, I feel some women don't take into account the instinctual reasons for it. Women are sexually objectified because men find women attractive. I'm not saying that they don't have case, it's just that they should also take that into account.

 

[Cyan]

The frequency of the violent online invective – or "trolling" – levelled at female commentators and columnists is now causing some of the best known names in journalism to hesitate before publishing their opinions.

:/

Hadn't realized it was quite that bad.

 

[Mungular]

 

[Devolution]

:/

Hadn't realized it was quite that bad.

One of the sites I read the woman has gotten scores of threatening emails that list her full name and address.

Cue but it's just trolling or some shit.

 

[Byakuya769]

No its usually that way. There's a reason why most female news anchors or spokesmen are attractive.

Yes, as eye candy. Not as intellectual heavy-weights.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Forgive me for thinking that woman's 'oppression' these days is exaggerated. I just don't really see things the same way some women do. There are women who are scientists, politicians, authors, doctors, pretty much all walks of life.

In terms of sexual objectification, I feel some women don't take into account the instinctual reasons for it. Women are sexually objectified because men find women attractive. I'm not saying that they don't have case, it's just that they should also take that into account.

We have a black president, but do you think black people have the same opportunities and are treated the same as everyone else?

 

[BGBW]

Oh look. Another group of people using "trolling" incorrectly.

Which actually undermines the whole thing. Emailing someone and telling them you can't wait for them to be raped is certainly not trolling. Because she called it that people have automatically ignored her message and the attackers get away scott free because trolling is a victimless crime. At least the rest of the article uses strong words like attacks. It's giving the fun loving Internet goers a bad name.

 

[Emily Chu]

seems like all women talk about on the web are talking shit/hating bout men...

and vice versa...

glad I'm sorta gay but not really

 

[ReBurn]

Logic forcefield!

 

[BocoDragon]

Im sympathetic to this. Women probably do get a lot more uncomfortable, appearance-based commentary. The only thing is that I worry about the futility of trying to change the minds of anonymous flamers...

 

[7Th]

...

That's a pretty horrible comic, though. It's no different from this:

 

[leadbelly]

We have a black president, but do you think black people have the same opportunities and are treated the same as everyone else?

I don't know. As I said, I see women in all sorts of jobs and positions. I never said that discrimination doesn't exist, only that it seems to me it is exaggerated.

 

[TommyT]

One of the sites I read the woman has gotten scores of threatening emails that list her full name and address.

Cue but it's just trolling or some shit.

That's just it though... it ISN'T trolling. Unless, for some reason 'trolling' has evolved to this. There was a thread earlier which explains from which trolling was originally derived (a fishing term).

I'm not trying to downplay the severity of what's happening to these people because it's actually pretty terrible.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

We have a black president, but do you think black people have the same opportunities and are treated the same as everyone else?

Stole my response.

Yes, as eye candy. Not as intellectual heavy-weights.

And that's the thing. Very very few women are seen as intellectual heavy-weights. Outside of Hillary, look at the most female politicians in America.

I don't know. As I said, I see women in all sorts of jobs and positions. I never said that discrimination doesn't exist, only that it seems to me it is exaggerated.

How many women in politics do you see? How many scientists? How many in high rankings in business. I do admit much of this is due to the "culture" but there is still sexism present.

Also if anything I see it as under exaggerated. Outside of feminists clubs, these things aren't talked about much in the mainstream.

 

[MetalAlien]

This is staggeringly accurate.

You son of a bitch.

 

[Devolution]

That's just it though... it ISN'T trolling. Unless, for some reason 'trolling' has evolved to this. There was a thread earlier which explains from which trolling was originally derived (a fishing term).

I'm not trying to downplay the severity of what's happening to these people because it's actually pretty terrible.

Who the fuck cares if they used the wrong terminology, it doesn't change what's going on.

 

[Mumei]

Both of these happen to some extent, but in my experience, loud internet misogynists don't really make an exception for women they find attractive. It might change the variety of insults they throw, but usually it seems like they were going to be assholes regardless.

I think that the problem that attractive women face is different; it's more in the line of being hit on (which on the surface might seem complimentary until it becomes apparent that it is in lieu of taking their ideas seriously).

You're probably right about the loud internet misogynists specifically, but I was talking about the way in which looks are a heads you win / tails you lose issue for women with regards to being taken seriously in general.

 

[- J - D -]

Now here's an interesting debate: whether true or false, do defamation and slander, along with other hate speech, fall under free speech?

Yes and no. The First Amendment protects free speech and covers expressive speech that could be referred to as hate speech.

The First Amendment does not immunize a cyber mob's conduct from regulation. The Supremem Court has held that the First Amendment permits restrictions on speech that offers "such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from it is clearly out-weighed by the social interest in order and morality."

This is equally true for threats, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional duress, and civil rights violations.

States can use criminal and civil law to forbid threats. It is up to them to do so.Threats fall outside of First Amendment protection. The First Amendment does not protect "true threats", as perceived by excessive invasion of privacy. If the perpetrator does so much as create use photos or images or publishes the address of the victim or impedes upon his/her ability to free speech, they would not be protected.

Most of the above was excerpted from a book I'm reading called The Offensive Internet.

 

[The Technomancer]

wut?

That's not exactly a contentious claim she's making.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

You son of a bitch.

Is that a way to talk to you're dear leader?

That's not exactly a contentious claim she's making.

Its a bait post.

 

[Inanna]

Yeah well it's easy to read into this stuff when it's unavoidable being called a fat ugly cunt who deserves to be raped on various places on the internet.

This thread sure went to shit quick about this issue though. Good job GAF.

Anything to do with women usually does.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

For relevance to this forum, think of all of the women that have been involved in the game industry and how they've been treated on here.

 

[BGBW]

Im sympathetic to this. Women probably do get a lot more uncomfortable, appearance-based commentary. The only thing is that I worry about the futility of trying to change the minds of anonymous flamers...

Of course on the other end of the spectrum there are those who flaunt their gender in order to stick out, i.e GURL GAMERS.

In the end the only real solution is to ignore people who send rude messages. Block email addresses and, if you must, disable comments on your blog.

 

[Devolution]

Anything to do with women usually does.

Yeah it doesn't surprise me but it's still

 

[squidyj]

...

This is absolutely not a sweeping generalization or oversimplification in any way at all ever.

As for the article, first of all it's not describing me so "I aint even mad" and secondly I wonder what the actual intent for this article is. Acknowledging the realities of the situation, where can we even go from here? Legislation would seem to me to be difficult to enforce without granting certain freedoms that would tend to chill legitimate discussion on the internet. The trolls/flamers aren't going to stop trolling/flaming just because someone pointed out that what they are doing is wrong (when has that EVER worked? seriously). I suppose the intent could be to create and later on maintain public awareness of this issue although I'm still not entirely sure what that would accomplish. It's an interesting article that represents what a lot of people already know but it seems to leave a sense of "yes, and?"

The only thing I will take as a bone of contention in the article though is the use of the Psychotherapist to 'ask questions' that seem to be more about defining the narrative of the issue than necessarily doing the work to properly understand the motivations of these people.

 

[MetalAlien]

Is that a way to talk to you're dear leader?

First quoted your (you're) typo. Second, I am just dinging your eval for the large image quote.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

For relevance to this forum, think of all of the women that have been involved in the game industry and how they've been treated on here.

But its just guys being guys!

 

[TommyT]

Who the fuck cares if they used the wrong terminology, it doesn't change what's going on.

Need to slow that down there. I'm not accusing them of using anything the wrong way. It was towards your little quip about how it's "just trolling". You think you're helping any cause by condescending like that?

So no, don't cue the "just trolling or some shit." I've had rational discussions with you before, but you're seriously too quick to jump on someone at times.

edit: I even agreed that what is happening is terrible, and you immediately jump to assume that I'm bashing the article about using the wrong terminology. Cue the "what do you mean 'YOU PEOPLE'" or some shit.

 

[Emily Chu]

For relevance to this forum, think of all of the women that have been involved in the game industry and how they've been treated on here.

haha oh wooowwwwwwwwwwwwww

too true

 

[rpmurphy]

She could have replaced antisemitism and islamophobia with racism and religious bigotry, because online bashing is really this broad in nature.

 

[poisonelf]

I think this thread:
Wired: "Mexican Blogger Decapitated; Cartels’ War on Social Media Spreads" (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451562) makes her problem quite the first world tantrum...

 

[Devolution]

Need to slow that down there. I'm not accusing them of using anything the wrong way. It was towards your little quip about how it's "just trolling". You think you're helping any cause by condescending like that?

So no, don't cue the "just trolling or some shit."

Um because so far the replies have been dismissive or along the lines of "just ignore it" when these women are feeling threatened.

 

[leadbelly]

How many women in politics do you see? How many scientists? How many in high rankings in business. I do admit much of this is due to the "culture" but there is still sexism present.

Also if anything I see it as under exaggerated. Outside of feminists clubs, these things aren't talked about much in the mainstream.

Perhaps not so much in politics, but there are certainly enough academics. The reasons are also really complicated. How many actually want to be in politics in the first place?

 

[Count Dookkake]

Article makes some good points and also makes some assumptions.

That said, an angry response from a Beta sure beats one from a Zeta.

 

[ronito]

How many women in politics do you see?

Quiet a few especially outside the US. Sadly, the Conservatives keep pushing the crazy soccer mom thing in the US.

How many scientists?

Just watched science channel plenty of women there.

How many in high rankings in business. I do admit much of this is due to the "culture" but there is still sexism present.

16% of CEOs are women. To put that in perspective that's 2% more than latino CEOs and 11% more than black CEOs.

Not saying it's not a problem, but it's not like they're exactly shunned.

 

[The Technomancer]

Woooow, this thread really brings out people who are out of touch.

 

[TommyT]

Um because so far the replies have been dismissive or along the lines of "just ignore it" when these women are feeling threatened.

So that clearly means I'm doing that too right?

edit: At that point you become no better than what this article is talking about. A group of people doing something which in turn leads to everyone being blamed for it.

 

[- J - D -]

I think this thread:
Wired: "Mexican Blogger Decapitated; Cartels’ War on Social Media Spreads" (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=451562) makes her problem quite the first world tantrum...

First world problems? Because harassment of web-speakers on the internet is okay and is limited only to places that are first world nations ? So emotional distress should be immediately discounted because it brings no physical harm?

 

[Satch]

Woooow, this thread really brings out people who are out of touch.

Tell me about it.

 

[Devolution]

So that clearly means I'm doing that too right?

It was a general question, I'm sorry if it sounded like it was directed at you. Just my frustration at the scores of posts talking about how she used trolling wrong, hand waving the real issue at hand here.

edit: At that point you become no better than what this article is talking about. A group of people doing something which in turn leads to everyone being blamed for it.

What are you talking about?

 

[BGBW]

Who the fuck cares if they used the wrong terminology, it doesn't change what's going on.

Calling this trolling really downplays what is actually happening which is why this thread has gone in the direction it has. Trolling is seen as all fun and games so clearly the author is just getting her knickers in a twist about nothing right? Reality is there's a big difference between having a joke argument with her and telling her you wish she'd get raped. Basically if she removed the word trolling from the article people would have taken this more seriously.

 

[Devolution]

Calling this trolling really downplays what is actually happening which is why this thread has gone in the direction it has. Trolling is seen as all fun and games so clearly the author is just getting her knickers in a twist about nothing right? Reality is there's a big difference between having a joke argument with her and telling her you wish she'd get raped. Basically if she removed the word trolling from the article people would have taken this more seriously.

Since we know she used the wrong term can we discuss it like we read the damn article and know what she's getting at or is that asking too much?