Women's Issues

I'm not Brazilian.

But here's the thing. I am not arguing against defending yourself, I am just asking if threathening the other person with death is a valid way to defend yourself, or if it will achieve anything. I am not advocating defenselessness and martyrdom, simply to use other alternatives that only result in perpetrating the hatred and fueling the perceived war of the opponent.

By telling MRAs "ALL MEN SHOULD BE CASTRATED" then you are just reinforcing their thought of victims of an unjust system, instead of debating their thoughts and ideas...

I am not saying you are doing that, Gabe. Castrating thing. Just that the argument of death threathening and stuff is not much of a defense and leans to that sense of radicalism.

edited 18th Sep '14 11:39:58 AM by Aszur

Maybe. And frankly, I don't blame someone for saying, "If you want to kill me you better come armed because I'll get you first."

I don't blame the people who fight back because to me it's victim blaming, just like I don't fault people who beat the shit out of their bullies.

They didn't start it, but when you're being threatened, you have every right to try and finish it.

Ah. But here we're talking about different things. The man coming to kill/rape/mug/attack you then and there is on your face.

The man accusing you of something and seeking to tarnish your career is using worded arguments because he cannot otherwise damage you physically. If you rebate his arguments all he has left is his anger and no real cause and absolute denial, but so long as there is someone who can shrug and go "Well they have a point in something..." then the subject will never die for there is somewhere to cling to.

The threats are something that should be handed over to the police. of course if someone comes for them they should defend themselves but to retaliate with the threats with the same...is that really the best thing to do, that will achieve that when it never before has...?

I gotta agree with Gabe here actualy, sure what happened to TB was bad, since he was an invalid target, but most people involved in those whole thing? No.

The most common tactic used by oppressors to keep a marginalized group "In there place" is "Your not addressing the problem properly", "If you were nicer about it maybe we would listen", "Your just proving our point"

You can not argue agianst a system from within the system...

No we're not.

What did they have to lose? Nothing.

Her career is already messed up. Her reputation is being slandered. And that little avatar online? You don't know if that's an empty threat or not.

Like with the previous article I posted about the Canadian feminist. She never posted her name she never gave her name. Within hours of the MRA group putting the video online, trolls were hunting her down, getting her personal information, and god knows if someone really would act on it or not.

It is worth a shot. When people are saying they are going to kill you. People are finding your personal information and posting it. People are hunting you down.

FUCK YES I will tell a woman to defend herself with everything she has! The cops have little control over cyber threats and unless you're the FBI you probably don't even have the resources or capability to deal with these people.

"Integrity" is not a bulletproof vest. Being the bigger person won't stop a crazy man from bringing a gun to your house or stalking you. I wish every woman was capable of just ignoring this kind of harassment and threats. I wish that it was just talk. I wish that people haven't been killed because some fucktard on the internet got butthurt he got called out on his misogyny and decided to post the girl's description on a rape site.

No. I don't blame people for fighting back when their lives are being threatened. I don't care if it's not civilized or it's stooping to another low. I don't care if it's supposedly never worked before. Their life is worth it and when it's at risk they have the right to decide what lengths are needed to attempt to protect it. They have my unconditional support.

If they weren't being attacked, it would never have to happen.

Ironically, Imca, I've been reading about Japanese culture, and it seems that, because of omoiyari, a lot change Japan needs never happens.

edited 18th Sep '14 12:05:37 PM by KingZeal

Yeah as much as I don't think sending threats to harassers is a good tactical way to talk them down and round, I'm not going to begrudge victims who do it. For the basic reason that talking such people down and round is not there job, there job is to protect themselves from harm.

From a wider "ending this kind of culture" perspective I think different tactics should be used, but that's a discussion of tactics between people who are safe, not a moral judgment on people who are under threat.

Threathening the same man will keep him away from stalking or killing you just as much as being the bigger person, if not actually incite him.

I am not condemning those who do it, it is understandable. To say I can understand her thoughts when I've never suffered something similar would be a crass lie. But I am not an advocate of responding in such manners. I am not saying it's easy to do it. Emotions are still a part of us.

Following anger though, solves nothing save stave frustration and arm the opposing side. Is it the best? No of course not, the best is, as you said, if it never happened in the first place but once it did, will fueling these flames be the best option to quell them?

I still hold that a threat is different than actual things. Telling the police is the thing to be done in case of death threats, and stabbing the guy in the eye if he luridly approaches in a dark alley if he's actually physically there are the responses to the different situations.

But who am I to deny people their right to scream at each other? I merely express my opinion that it is fruitless and will solve nothing, if not endanger her more.

@ Violent revolutions: China wants to say hi. In fact, the Chinese have done it every time dynastic changes took place.

Also, @ TotalBiscuit I think of it as a large pub brawl. If you get in the cross fire you get hit, innocent or no. It's not quite morally just, sure, but that's just the nature of shitstorms like that.

Whether it's justified or not, sending people death threats is illegal. By engaging in death threats, you're making it impossible for the original perpetrator to face legal consequences without opening yourself up to the same.

The day 4chan faces legal consequences for anything they do, it's going to be all over the news. Law enforcement versus random, scattered citizens suddenly forced to put their money where their mouth is.

A lot of people are going to jail if anyone ever makes the push to arrest and prosecute Anonymous. It's really just a question of what's going to be the breaking point. How far is too far for internet anonymity? What event will ring the death knell for internet users' ability to behave in the most reprehensible possible fashion without any consequences?

edited 18th Sep '14 5:38:55 PM by TobiasDrake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29#Arrests_and_trials

Well, occasionally members of Anonymous get arrested already, but since Anon and 4chan are not real organisation in any sense of that word, it will be very hard to get traction for the public to go out in arms against them.

Removing internet anonymity might solve those issues of GIFT but given that there are people behaving like assholes on facebook of all places (and ended up getting arrested) I somehow doubt that would work 100% even then.

True.

I don't think that anyone is saying that swinging back is a good idea. We are saying that given the circumstances it is understandable that people would hit back when attacked.

I'd say that a pub brawl is a good comparison to the situation with GamerGate, except that instead of alcohol gamers are drunken with their obsession with gaming.

edited 18th Sep '14 5:47:02 PM by IraTheSquire

Double the number of women have gone for cancer screenings since Angelina Jolie came out with her surgery.

Yeah!

Extraordinary delusions and why gamers need to grow up.

Ally Fogg on FreeThought Blogs makes some excellent points.

He also makes the point that you can't go "but Video Games are Art!" whilst simultaneously going "keep your political criticisms away from my video games". Cultural criticism has always been steeped in politics. If you claim to be culture, then get used to it.

edited 19th Sep '14 11:57:45 AM by Achaemenid

Sounds about right to me.

The more one reads about that whole...thing the more I am convinced that it really is just children butthurt about a woman getting into their "business". I think they are more offended about Zoe cheating on her boyfriend, or daring to stand up for herself.

Not to mention all the insulting from one side to the other and vice versa not...leading anywhere, really....

I think most people involved are idiots just for being involved. On any side of it.

That sounds a bit like a Golden Mean Fallacy to me.

I said any side, not both sides.

I don't think that fallacy only works for two sides. You can say for example fascists, communists and monarchists have it all wrong, the truth is in the middle of all three. The logic is not bound to the first dimension.

That's... not any better. Not at all.

edited 19th Sep '14 2:26:57 PM by KingZeal

That fallacy doesn't work since it by definition includes a side that's right, in the middle of everything else.

Randomly, had you said, "anarchists, communists and monarchists" I'd have found it hilarious for reasons I'm not going to explain.

edited 19th Sep '14 2:40:24 PM by AnotherDuck

http://wgntv.com/2014/09/19/mother-killed-trying-to-protect-baby-who-survived-13-hours-in-toilet/

Another lady becomes an IPV statistic.

Her last act was saving her daughter from becoming one.

Rest in peace, Mama Bear. You saved Baby Bear. (Now it's just the case of having other people help Baby Bear deal with it... -_-)

edited 19th Sep '14 3:52:08 PM by Euodiachloris