81–90 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the word "rape". It was actually "rape", "slut" and "whore"
How can they detect what somebody meant by "rape"? A big chunk of people talk about raping people in videogames every day when they mean killing their online avatars, how do they filter that out?
> When an article makes a politically correct claim: "Yeah I totally feel this is true, this one time [insert anecdote here]" > When an article makes a not-so politically correct claim: "Well it's not peer reviewed / look at the paper that's publishing it / this is the wrong definition / headline is misleading / [insert criticism not related to the claim]"
It's not necessarily wrong to expect different standards of evidence for different kinds of claims, and to expect a very high standard of evidence for claims that might have profound social implications.
Those are two different things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see it that way at all. I think the sort of casually calling other women slags and hoes or whatever (ie normalised internalised misogyny) is a very different ball game to the gamergate style evil shit that happens.
(Anecdotal) Doxxing long predates Gamergate and from what I've seen from BBS and hacker communities on IRC, women participate in doxxing just as much as men.
However, I do believe that women are just as likely and willing to participate when they do end up in these communities. It's just that they're less likely to do so, just as they're less likely to end up working as programmers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. Science is not a singlar effort, nor is peer review without replication. Please question your assumptions about what science really is.
Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?
> When an article makes a politically correct claim: "Yeah I totally feel this is true, this one time [insert anecdote here]" > When an article makes a not-so politically correct claim: "Well it's not peer reviewed / look at the paper that's publishing it / this is the wrong definition / headline is misleading / [insert criticism not related to the claim]"
It's not necessarily wrong to expect different standards of evidence for different kinds of claims, and to expect a very high standard of evidence for claims that might have profound social implications.
Now people certainly can hide behind the idea that they only do so for profound social implications but by then they are just trying avoid acknowledging that they know whats being said is true.
there are always some socially unacceptable facts, the kind people either nod their head or just acknowledge silently. It comes from being in a society where truth is second to needs.
A more accurate title: Half of misogynistic abuse aimed at female twitter users in the UK found to be from other women. The reality is that, in other countries, things may be very different. Also, this study in no way attempted to quantify all forms of online abuse. Heck, if women are this bad to each other, they may actually commit well more than half of all abuse if you include abuse aimed at males. Boys can be pre…
It did provoke an interesting reaction in the Guardian. To paraphrase, if it's just men then they're sad loners picking on women. But as it's women too then it must be due to a problem in our education system. They then went on to blame our ex Education Secretary but that's probably a contractual thing for Guardian writers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Anecdotal) Doxxing long predates Gamergate and from what I've seen from BBS and hacker communities on IRC, women participate in doxxing just as much as men.
At best one could argue that there's simply less women in these communities due to societal pressures. During the past decade or so I've probably met as many transwomen as "real" women on these hacker IRCs. However, I do believe that women are just as likely and willing to participate when they do end up in these communities. It's just that they're less likely to do so, just as they're less likely to end up working a…
Then why is it so hard for people to believe that women on the internet are just as abusive as men on the internet? The internet is a community, or community of communities.
> When an article makes a politically correct claim: "Yeah I totally feel this is true, this one time [insert anecdote here]" > When an article makes a not-so politically correct claim: "Well it's not peer reviewed / look at the paper that's publishing it / this is the wrong definition / headline is misleading / [insert criticism not related to the claim]"
It's not necessarily wrong to expect different standards of evidence for different kinds of claims, and to expect a very high standard of evidence for claims that might have profound social implications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange that you believe any science that's not reproducible is science. Or assume that if the science is not reproduced, it's sciencifically valid. That's the exact opposite of what I said. What's wrong with you?
What did I say that's conflicted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot the word "rape". It was actually "rape", "slut" and "whore"
The article says: > Women are responsible for half of all misogynistic Tweets > using the words "slut and whore", a new study has found. ?