The online trolling crisis (cyber-bullying and harassment)

[Ljvonia]

First it was the £10 note trolls and now a suicide of a 14-year old girl:

Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23612792 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23601986

404 - Page Not Found

So how exactly should we make social media safe from systematic bullying and harassing, other than censorship? How would real names or more moderators be a good idea?

These sites usually have a block-user option, don't they? Teach children to use it, problem solved... at least for the online part of the bullying.

[Llamalandia]

No it's merely pointing out an unpleasant truth.

No, it's blaming the victim. You don't even know who the average victim is. Also, great job ignoring all the male rape victims. That's another massive problem, and massively sexist of you.

It's similar to saying a woman with a gun and training in self defense is less likely to be successfully raped than a woman who hates guns and violence and can't defend herself.

The overwhelming majority of rapes are not stranger rapes. If you knew anything about real victims or real rapists, you'd know this. You'd also know how little self defense will matter in the majority of cases.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute people who rape defenseless women just because they didn't arm themselves, but it's not unfair to point out that some would be victims are able fight back and save themselves.

That's victim blaming. You have no idea what it's like to be raped, and I honestly hope you never do. But suffice it to say, your assumptions and assertions are condescending at best and flat out wrong at worst. You know what rape victims hear when you say that? They hear "You would have gotten away if you would have just fought harder." Many do fight, many end up dead or beaten up worse because they did.

Every single rape victim that's alive to tell their story did EXACTLY the right thing. You weren't in the situation. They were. Do not second guess them.

Likewise, the general thinking amongst rapists is that if a woman is dressed a certain way they will be more likely to "beat the rap" at trial (in reality this doesn't work out well for them) pointing out that style of dress may make one more or less likely to victimized is not "victim blaming" it's simply stating the obvious if inconvenient truth that rapists prefer certain targets over others.

Source that. You are so very wrong, but you're convinced this is the way of the world. Fine. Source it.

(and of course this is all predicated on the notion of stranger rape which is less common than acquaintance rape in which dress is less of a factor).

You know what does actually work in reducing rapes? Stigmatizing rape. Places that run don't rape campaigns instead of don't be raped campaigns see much greater reduction in rapes. Funny how that works...making a crime actually not a cool thing to do. Don't believe that a society that believes some women deserved to be raped because of how they dress or act? Look at Steubenville. Look at the rapes of men and women that happen across college campuses. Look at female on male rape. These crimes happen either out of ignorance that what the rapist is doing is rape or because they live in a society that tells them that some people are okay to take advantage of, and don't worry, we'll all support you if you're caught.

Perpetuating this myth that dress somehow affects a woman's (does it affect a man's too?) likelihood to be raped is perpetuating this culture that says "Yeah...rape is bad, but she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut." Which adds to the notion that sluts can be raped. See how that works? Besides, if you were right, then the rape rate should be effectively zero in Muslim countries (with or without the full chadora) since Muslims are required to dress modestly.

Sorry no threadjack intended, but I didn't bring it up, though when people call me a horrible horrible person I feel a right to respond.

Yes, thread jack intended. That's all you do in this thread since you can't actually argue the topic.

You are a victim blamer, sexist. And yes, that makes you a horrible person.

But if you want to start a thread to tell rape victims that it's their fault they were raped, go do that and leave this topic be in this thread. There's enough horribleness to go around already. No need to add to it.

No Im not blaming the victim, therefore I'm not a sexist or a horrible person. Stating the obvious=/= blaming the victim. Besides you're the one that asserted that society in general has a victim blaming mentality and that this mentality was being extended to the internet. I disagreed with you, but i never went on to calling you a horrible person or question your motivations. Also to your question, of does dress affect men too I would say in extreme cases yes, some rapists may believe that if a guy is "dressed gay" they may be an easier target to victimize, again doesn't make it the victims fault for the attack it makes it the rapist's fault for being a rapist, at the same time its fair to advise people to avoid certain areas or certain behaviors which may lead to a greater likelihood of victimization. doesn't mean that if they ignore the suggestions it's suddenly open season for all rapists, its just commonsense advice that people are free to take or discard as they see fit. Now, yes I would say a woman waling alone dressed provocatively at night in the bad part of town isn't exercising the best judgement but I can say again at the same time it doesn't excuse the acts of any attacker.
But yeah lets agree I'm not a horrible person so this doesn't turn into a threadjack (again not my intention) and you can maybe respond to my other argument.

[Shnercropolis]

Real names. The big problem is anonymity.

[Llamalandia]

Real names. The big problem is anonymity.

Yeah cause real names won't make it easier for people who actually want to do violence to someone to you know find them in real life. Seriously I don't mind if people say they want to rape and murder me (well I do but not a lot) online because well, good luck finding me buddy If you remove anonymity all of a sudden every time you want to say something potentially provocative or outside the norm you may have to worry about the real world repercussions, not saying it wouldn't also make it easier to track you're killer, but still I'd rather be anonymous and alive then dead.

[Gravlen]

My bringing up drug testing in sport was in response to your assertion that only the law is the appropriate remedy for things. My contention is that sometimes people act to correct problems outside the scope of law, no one had to pass a law requiring baseball or cycling to drug test athletes they did it without intervention you might almost say they were acting kinda like vigilantes (which you decry) that was my point.

This post is truly silly. I don't see anybody saying that only the law is a proper remedy for things. That private individuals setting up private games with private rules are allowed to enforce those private rules on any person who consents to abide by said private rules is not in dispute (though it is basic contract law, so the law is a factor.)

Courts and people disagree about what is and isn't proof all the time, heck after the zimmerman verdict the prosecutor referred to him as a "murderer" this is after the man was held not guilty by a jury of his peers, if you can get away with calling a man who was just exonerated a murderer (not in my opinion no she just flat said murderer) you can say just about anything.

You should be aware that Zimmerman has legal venues he can avail himself of if he wants to press charges - so far, he has chosen to not go further with the matter. So yeah, just like trolls can get away with it if nobody reports them to the proper authorities, so Corey can get away with calling him a murderer if he doesn't take action.

No I won't stop (or wouldn't if I actually did that sort thing).

And I believe we've already labelled you as part of the problem for this exact reason.

Soemtimes it is funny and appropriate (rarely I admit)e.g.Daniel Tosh see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isSJjwdXgho hilarious.

Not at all. Then again, I don't think Daniel Tosh has ever been funny.

Can rape jokes be funny? Yes. Jimmy Carr has several examples of how it can be done. You know what the secret is?

Not making the victim of rape be the butt of the joke.

I do have a problem prosecuting idiots for transients douchebaggery, yeah I think guys like that are expletives but that doesn't mean i want them thrown in jail for it. Who knows maybe they had good reason to yell that themselves, maybe they had a crappy day are annoyed the street is blocked because some other idiot can't decide whether or not to take the big plunge. Maybe they know the guy personally, maybe he's a horrible person who 'deserve" death (I admit Im stretching here.)

They're free to use those excuses in a court. Maybe the jury will be sympathetic.

Lots (well at least a few) people resisted and I believe if I'm not mistaken a few survivors managed to flee into the woods when the order to end it all came from Jones. Yeah, sure some people are easily lead no denying but they still at the end of the day made a choice (aside from those killed by others and the children though some older kids resisted if I'm not mistaken).
People didn;t kill themselves because they were told to do so they did it because they had a spiritual belief in Jones that he was some kind of profit of God or something.

...which all came from words. It was based on what he said, or what they read. Words persuaded them, and words led them to kill themselves and others.

Nothing you've said above detracts from my claim: That words are powerful tools.

That's kinda the point, isn't it? If you exert enough influence over someone, they will obey your orders.

Whether or not that influence is some delusional belief or something else.

But it's not my fault others are delusional, stupid or easily lead. I didn't doing anything to make them that way, i;m not holding a gun to their heads (although in jonestown they did have people with guns act as guards to keep the less devout in line toward the very end). Thus shouldn't be punished just because others are lemmings who jump off a cliff because i tell them too.

You would be punished because you took an action with ill-intent, well aware of the possible consequences.

To bring this back more to the origin of the topic, I don't see much working unless society in general changes and that's neither a quick nor easy change to accomplish.

Especially when we have people who don't want to see society change and work against it.

Even if everyone were nicer most of the time there are always gonna be a few jerks out their who hurl epithets or tell someone to commit suicide or something. That's just how the world is and practically speaking none of the proposed solutions (sort of govt intervention which is a no go for me) would fix it.

Well then, bring on the government intervention.

Yeah, have more mods thats great, automatic systems aren't likely feasible in practice. As long as govt isn't forcing private companies to police the internet (or policing it themselves aside from real crimes like drugs and terrorists and stuff) I got little to complain about.

Threats and harassment are real and serious crimes.

If I don't like the modding on forum I can go to another or start my own it's just that easy. As to giving up anonymity no thank you I like being able to say and speak uncomfortable truths and opinions without fair that someone can easily look me up, find my address and "teach me a lesson" (not that i think I give cause to people to do that very often.)

Yeah, it would be bad if someone were to harass you simply because of something you wrote or said online... You should be protected against that.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been for her friends to defend her online and or retaliate against her alleged tormenters.

Absolutely not.

[Gravlen]

Typically, this is what goes through my mind when I encounter a 10-year old on the internet calling everyone 'homosexuals' and 'gays' where I brutally tear him up, verbally.

"Mom! Mommy! This person on the internet said I should stop hating on gays!"
"We're calling the effing cops! Get this person arrested for hurting your feelings!"

Honestly, if you're going to be on the internet you need to take an insult or eleven, because opinions get shot down on the internet. It's another world.

On the contrary. It's the real world, and the notion that laws don't apply online needs to be combated at all turns.

Quite right.

I am somewhat bemused at the people who're shocked and surprised to find this out the hard way. I have little sympathy for them.

[Snafturi]

No Im not blaming the victim,

Yes, you are. It's actually as textbook as you can get when it comes to victim blaming.

therefore I'm not a sexist

¨
You're sexist because you completely ignored male rape victims. It's very nearly sexist hear that you think this somehow goes back to women.

or a horrible person.

Yes, you are.

Stating the obvious=/= blaming the victim.

Your wrong information, your potentially harmful information? Your "facts" that reinforce these myths which reinforces rape culture? That's stating the obvious? No.

Besides you're the one that asserted that society in general has a victim blaming mentality and that this mentality was being extended to the internet. I disagreed with you, but i never went on to calling you a horrible person or question your motivations.

Oh, something on topic has appeared. Well, seeing as how I'm strongly advocating for harassment laws to be equivalent online and offline, strongly condemning people who want to put the onus of their attacker's actions on them, especially if we start from the point that everyone who's killed themselves is mentally ill before hand (not that I aggre with that claim, but playing what if). Because abusing mentally ill people is reprehensible. If one absolutely has to pick on someone, pick on someone who at least isn't mentally ill and thus lacking coping mechanisms they need to deal with such a thing.

You can call me a horrible person for that, but that would mean redefining what the word horrible is.

If it's the fact that I get more and more abrasive with posters who don't actually want to engage in an intellectually honest debate, or have been around long enough to know how debates work and chooses to boldly cut their own path. You'd be stretching the term as well.

Also to your question, of does dress affect men too I would say in extreme cases yes, some rapists may believe that if a guy is "dressed gay" they may be an easier target to victimize, again doesn't make it the victims fault for the attack it makes it the rapist's fault for being a rapist, at the same time its fair to advise people to avoid certain areas or certain behaviors which may lead to a greater likelihood of victimization.

Patronizing at best, incorrect at worst. And again, wouldn't happen in Muslim countries. Or rapes of Muslim women wearing modest closes(as they're required to do) in non Muslim countries. So again, wrong.

doesn't mean that if they ignore the suggestions it's suddenly open season for all rapists, its just commonsense advice that people are free to take or discard as they see fit.

No, it reenforces terrible myths that reinforce a society norm that it's okay to to help yourself when someone is passed out in the back room.

Now, yes I would say a woman waling alone dressed provocatively at night in the bad part of town isn't exercising the best judgement but I can say again at the same time it doesn't excuse the acts of any attacker.

Now you're conflating stranger rape and date rape. Because if you think a stranger rapist takes dress into acct, you have no idea at all about stranger rape.

But yeah lets agree I'm not a horrible person so this doesn't turn into a threadjack (again not my intention) and you can maybe respond to my other argument.[/quote]
I will never agree you're not a horrible person. You're dissmissiveness of victims in these threads is stomach turning. Your insisiting on bringing up things about rape, wheh it's very clear you've never researched the subject.

Nice threat. I have to agree you're not a horrible person so you won't continue thread jacking. Now you're either threatening me or trying to manipulate me.

Edit: I don't know how I missed this. "If guy dressed gay??" You do know that at least have of male rapes are female on male. Wow, wait to go. That's definitely another tick for "horrible".

[Llamalandia]

My bringing up drug testing in sport was in response to your assertion that only the law is the appropriate remedy for things. My contention is that sometimes people act to correct problems outside the scope of law, no one had to pass a law requiring baseball or cycling to drug test athletes they did it without intervention you might almost say they were acting kinda like vigilantes (which you decry) that was my point.

This post is truly silly. I don't see anybody saying that only the law is a proper remedy for things. That private individuals setting up private games with private rules are allowed to enforce those private rules on any person who consents to abide by said private rules is not in dispute (though it is basic contract law, so the law is a factor.)

Courts and people disagree about what is and isn't proof all the time, heck after the zimmerman verdict the prosecutor referred to him as a "murderer" this is after the man was held not guilty by a jury of his peers, if you can get away with calling a man who was just exonerated a murderer (not in my opinion no she just flat said murderer) you can say just about anything.

You should be aware that Zimmerman has legal venues he can avail himself of if he wants to press charges - so far, he has chosen to not go further with the matter. So yeah, just like trolls can get away with it if nobody reports them to the proper authorities, so Corey can get away with calling him a murderer if he doesn't take action.

No I won't stop (or wouldn't if I actually did that sort thing).

And I believe we've already labelled you as part of the problem for this exact reason.

Soemtimes it is funny and appropriate (rarely I admit)e.g.Daniel Tosh see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isSJjwdXgho hilarious.

Not at all. Then again, I don't think Daniel Tosh has ever been funny.

Can rape jokes be funny? Yes. Jimmy Carr has several examples of how it can be done. You know what the secret is?

Not making the victim of rape be the butt of the joke.

I do have a problem prosecuting idiots for transients douchebaggery, yeah I think guys like that are expletives but that doesn't mean i want them thrown in jail for it. Who knows maybe they had good reason to yell that themselves, maybe they had a crappy day are annoyed the street is blocked because some other idiot can't decide whether or not to take the big plunge. Maybe they know the guy personally, maybe he's a horrible person who 'deserve" death (I admit Im stretching here.)

They're free to use those excuses in a court. Maybe the jury will be sympathetic.

Lots (well at least a few) people resisted and I believe if I'm not mistaken a few survivors managed to flee into the woods when the order to end it all came from Jones. Yeah, sure some people are easily lead no denying but they still at the end of the day made a choice (aside from those killed by others and the children though some older kids resisted if I'm not mistaken).
People didn;t kill themselves because they were told to do so they did it because they had a spiritual belief in Jones that he was some kind of profit of God or something.

...which all came from words. It was based on what he said, or what they read. Words persuaded them, and words led them to kill themselves and others.

Nothing you've said above detracts from my claim: That words are powerful tools.

But it's not my fault others are delusional, stupid or easily lead. I didn't doing anything to make them that way, i;m not holding a gun to their heads (although in jonestown they did have people with guns act as guards to keep the less devout in line toward the very end). Thus shouldn't be punished just because others are lemmings who jump off a cliff because i tell them too.

You would be punished because you took an action with ill-intent, well aware of the possible consequences.

To bring this back more to the origin of the topic, I don't see much working unless society in general changes and that's neither a quick nor easy change to accomplish.

Especially when we have people who don't want to see society change and work against it.

Even if everyone were nicer most of the time there are always gonna be a few jerks out their who hurl epithets or tell someone to commit suicide or something. That's just how the world is and practically speaking none of the proposed solutions (sort of govt intervention which is a no go for me) would fix it.

Well then, bring on the government intervention.

Yeah, have more mods thats great, automatic systems aren't likely feasible in practice. As long as govt isn't forcing private companies to police the internet (or policing it themselves aside from real crimes like drugs and terrorists and stuff) I got little to complain about.

Threats and harassment are real and serious crimes.

If I don't like the modding on forum I can go to another or start my own it's just that easy. As to giving up anonymity no thank you I like being able to say and speak uncomfortable truths and opinions without fair that someone can easily look me up, find my address and "teach me a lesson" (not that i think I give cause to people to do that very often.)

Yeah, it would be bad if someone were to harass you simply because of something you wrote or said online... You should be protected against that.

Ultimately, the best thing would have been for her friends to defend her online and or retaliate against her alleged tormenters.

Absolutely not.

Any kind of rape joke has the potential to be funny, not that everyone will find every joke funny (regardless of subject).

My point was that giving up anonymity can lead to real world actual harm that I don't believe can occur through purely electronic means (well a=outside of fraud and such) Im talking like I say for instance something appalling like "the holocaust was awesome" and some Jews knowing my real name look up my address and decide to you know murder me for my opinion. That's what I meant. With anonymity all they can do is say well you're a horrible person on whatever forums or social networks I belong to, would it suck yeah, would i deserve perhaps.

Why not? If she's not what ever her tormenters allege why shouldn't her friends defend her? I stick up for mine in the real world why shouldn't people do the same in the online space.

IF words are so powerful couldn't I just convince you to kill yourself and then win this argument by default?

[Llamalandia]

No Im not blaming the victim,

Yes, you are. It's actually as textbook as you can get when it comes to victim blaming.

therefore I'm not a sexist

¨
You're sexist because you completely ignored male rape victims. It's very nearly sexist hear that you think this somehow goes back to women.

or a horrible person.

Yes, you are.

Stating the obvious=/= blaming the victim.

Your wrong information, your potentially harmful information? Your "facts" that reinforce these myths which reinforces rape culture? That's stating the obvious? No.

Besides you're the one that asserted that society in general has a victim blaming mentality and that this mentality was being extended to the internet. I disagreed with you, but i never went on to calling you a horrible person or question your motivations.

Oh, something on topic has appeared. Well, seeing as how I'm strongly advocating for harassment laws to be equivalent online and offline, strongly condemning people who want to put the onus of their attacker's actions on them, especially if we start from the point that everyone who's killed themselves is mentally ill before hand (not that I aggre with that claim, but playing what if). Because abusing mentally ill people is reprehensible. If one absolutely has to pick on someone, pick on someone who at least isn't mentally ill and thus lacking coping mechanisms they need to deal with such a thing.

You can call me a horrible person for that, but that would mean redefining what the word horrible is.

If it's the fact that I get more and more abrasive with posters who don't actually want to engage in an intellectually honest debate, or have been around long enough to know how debates work and chooses to boldly cut their own path. You'd be stretching the term as well.

Also to your question, of does dress affect men too I would say in extreme cases yes, some rapists may believe that if a guy is "dressed gay" they may be an easier target to victimize, again doesn't make it the victims fault for the attack it makes it the rapist's fault for being a rapist, at the same time its fair to advise people to avoid certain areas or certain behaviors which may lead to a greater likelihood of victimization.

Patronizing at best, incorrect at worst. And again, wouldn't happen in Muslim countries. Or rapes of Muslim women wearing modest closes(as they're required to do) in non Muslim countries. So again, wrong.

doesn't mean that if they ignore the suggestions it's suddenly open season for all rapists, its just commonsense advice that people are free to take or discard as they see fit.

No, it reenforces terrible myths that reinforce a society norm that it's okay to to help yourself when someone is passed out in the back room.

Now, yes I would say a woman waling alone dressed provocatively at night in the bad part of town isn't exercising the best judgement but I can say again at the same time it doesn't excuse the acts of any attacker.

Now you're conflating stranger rape and date rape. Because if you think a stranger rapist takes dress into acct, you have no idea at all about stranger rape.

But yeah lets agree I'm not a horrible person so this doesn't turn into a threadjack (again not my intention) and you can maybe respond to my other argument.

I will never agree you're not a horrible person. You're dissmissiveness of victims in these threads is stomach turning. Your insisiting on bringing up things about rape, wheh it's very clear you've never researched the subject.

Nice threat. I have to agree you're not a horrible person so you won't continue thread jacking. Now you're either threatening me or trying to manipulate me.

Edit: I don't know how I missed this. "If guy dressed gay??" You do know that at least have of male rapes are female on male. Wow, wait to go. That's definitely another tick for "horrible".[/quote]

im not conflating the two types of rape if you read my earlier post you would know that I specifically distinguished between the two types. And no Im' not victim blaming and therefor am not a horrible person.

Also cultural relativism Im not talking about muslim countries or muslim communities Im talking about the western world.

Also do you have a source for half of all rapes being female on male?

[Gravlen]

Lets reframe this issue a little yet again. Considering that the girl in question had her Facebook memorial trolled as I understand and many people consider this highly offensive and unacceptable. Since this was a Uk event allow me to compare to another uk event the passing of Lady Thatcher. Now in real life (and online for that matter) her funeral was essentially trolled, what with people celebrating her passing with death parties and people singing ding dong the witch is dead and so forth. Now this is an internationally renowned female politician and yet she was horribly disrespected by the people she had served. Yet I don't recall many people be arrested then (save for perhaps a few truly drunk and destructive individuals). Surely this must have been a source of great distress for her family (just as it was for the family of this girl on Facebook) yet I see no suggestions that the govt should have gotten involved to arrest people for harassment or bullying or intentionally distressing the Thatcher family. It seems as though a double standard is at work where in we want to punish things online that aren't even punished in the real world.

Protesters could be arrested for "alarming or distressing" mourners at the funeral of Lady Thatcher, a police chief in charge of security at the event has warned.

Commander Christine Jones, who oversaw the wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton, warned that officers had power under the controversial section 5 of the Public Order Act to step in if non-violent action was the cause of "harassment, alarm or distress" as Thatcher's coffin makes its way through London to St Paul's Cathedral.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/13/dont-upset-margaret-thatcher-mourners

[Vicswampia]

Cameron really believes internet is serious business.

[Gravlen]

Any kind of rape joke has the potential to be funny

Absolutely not.

My point was that giving up anonymity can lead to real world actual harm that I don't believe can occur through purely electronic means (well a=outside of fraud and such) Im talking like I say for instance something appalling like "the holocaust was awesome" and some Jews knowing my real name look up my address and decide to you know murder me for my opinion. That's what I meant. With anonymity all they can do is say well you're a horrible person on whatever forums or social networks I belong to, would it suck yeah, would i deserve perhaps.

And as we have seen, anonymity doesn't always stop people from tracking down your name and personal information, leading to real harm.

Why not? If she's not what ever her tormenters allege why shouldn't her friends defend her? I stick up for mine in the real world why shouldn't people do the same in the online space.

Because responding only feeds the troll. Because she probably had more anonymous tormenters than friends. Because reporting it to authorities (including mods) are more efficient than engaging in flame wars and trolling.

IF words are so powerful couldn't I just convince you to kill yourself and then win this argument by default?

No. Two points:

1) That would support my claim.
2) A single datapoint wouldn't be sufficient to prove anything

[Snafturi]

im not conflating the two types of rape if you read my earlier post you would know that I specifically distinguished between the two types. And no Im' not victim blaming and therefor am not a horrible person.

You're doing the very definition in victim blaming. Just because you pretend it's not victim blaming, doesn't change that it is.

Also cultural relativism Im not talking about muslim countries or muslim communities Im talking about the western world.

Oh, so it's only men in western worlds that just can't help but rape sluts.

Also do you have a source for half of all rapes being female on male?

Oh, Mr. Never can source wants a source. Let's look at the CDC. They use a sexist definition of rape, so "made to penetrate" would be it.
approximately 1 in 21 men were raped in the sexist "made to penetrate category". Approximately 1 in 71 were raped with the narrow, sexist definition.
-Thus, of all rape victims surveyed 22% were raped by the made to penetrate, sexist definition. 77.5% were raped under the "made to penetrate" heading.
-Of rape, by the sexist definition, we have women as perpetrators 6.7% of the time. So 105 000 of those rapes were done by women. 79.2% were responsible for "made to penetrate" type rape. So, 4 317 000 rapes in this category were done by women.
105 000 + 4 317 000 0 = 4.422 million rapes being committed by a woman. Divide this by the total rapes (5.451 mil + 1.581 mil= 7.032 mil) and we get 62.8% So more, actually.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf

Ready to stop the threadjack yet? You're only making yourself look worse in the sexist category. There's also nothing you can say that doesn't make you look like you're blaming the victim. Go start a thread on victim blaming if you want. We haven't had one in a few months, and it seems you didn't pay attention to the last one we did have.

[Llamalandia]

im not conflating the two types of rape if you read my earlier post you would know that I specifically distinguished between the two types. And no Im' not victim blaming and therefor am not a horrible person.

You're doing the very definition in victim blaming. Just because you pretend it's not victim blaming, doesn't change that it is.

Also cultural relativism Im not talking about muslim countries or muslim communities Im talking about the western world.

Oh, so it's only men in western worlds that just can't help but rape sluts.

Also do you have a source for half of all rapes being female on male?

Oh, Mr. Never can source wants a source. Let's look at the CDC. They use a sexist definition of rape, so "made to penetrate" would be it.
approximately 1 in 21 men were raped in the sexist "made to penetrate category". Approximately 1 in 71 were raped with the narrow, sexist definition.
-Thus, of all rape victims surveyed 22% were raped by the made to penetrate, sexist definition. 77.5% were raped under the "made to penetrate" heading.
-Of rape, by the sexist definition, we have women as perpetrators 6.7% of the time. So 105 000 of those rapes were done by women. 79.2% were responsible for "made to penetrate" type rape. So, 4 317 000 rapes in this category were done by women.
105 000 + 4 317 000 0 = 4.422 million rapes being committed by a woman. Divide this by the total rapes (5.451 mil + 1.581 mil= 7.032 mil) and we get 62.8% So more, actually.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf

Ready to stop the threadjack yet? You're only making yourself look worse in the sexist category. There's also nothing you can say that doesn't make you look like you're blaming the victim. Go start a thread on victim blaming if you want. We haven't had one in a few months, and it seems you didn't pay attention to the last one we did have.

No I missed the thread on victim blaming. I disagree and don't like it when people call me things I'm not and say i'm a horrible person I wouldn't have gone on this long but for the personal attack by another.
Don't care for these purposes about muslim countries.
Ok thanx for those stats.
Now how about this, we shouldn't punish things online that aren't punished in relief like funeral trolling. You can troll funerals in real life, but based on the bbc story and it sounds like people feel you should by law be prevented from trolling online memorials. It's this double standard I disagree with, what say you.

[Llamalandia]

Any kind of rape joke has the potential to be funny

Absolutely not.

My point was that giving up anonymity can lead to real world actual harm that I don't believe can occur through purely electronic means (well a=outside of fraud and such) Im talking like I say for instance something appalling like "the holocaust was awesome" and some Jews knowing my real name look up my address and decide to you know murder me for my opinion. That's what I meant. With anonymity all they can do is say well you're a horrible person on whatever forums or social networks I belong to, would it suck yeah, would i deserve perhaps.

And as we have seen, anonymity doesn't always stop people from tracking down your name and personal information, leading to real harm.

Why not? If she's not what ever her tormenters allege why shouldn't her friends defend her? I stick up for mine in the real world why shouldn't people do the same in the online space.

Because responding only feeds the troll. Because she probably had more anonymous tormenters than friends. Because reporting it to authorities (including mods) are more efficient than engaging in flame wars and trolling.

IF words are so powerful couldn't I just convince you to kill yourself and then win this argument by default?

No. Two points:

1) That would support my claim.
2) A single datapoint wouldn't be sufficient to prove anything

Yes exactly lets think about the data for a second, how many people have been told online they should go kill themselves, I'm guessing a lot and how many have acted on those vile suggestions? I'm guessing not a whole lot, don't know if any actually surveys have been done so I'm going with instinct here.

[The Norgan Alliance]

im not conflating the two types of rape if you read my earlier post you would know that I specifically distinguished between the two types. And no Im' not victim blaming and therefor am not a horrible person.

You're doing the very definition in victim blaming. Just because you pretend it's not victim blaming, doesn't change that it is.

Also cultural relativism Im not talking about muslim countries or muslim communities Im talking about the western world.

Oh, so it's only men in western worlds that just can't help but rape sluts.

Also do you have a source for half of all rapes being female on male?

Oh, Mr. Never can source wants a source. Let's look at the CDC. They use a sexist definition of rape, so "made to penetrate" would be it.
approximately 1 in 21 men were raped in the sexist "made to penetrate category". Approximately 1 in 71 were raped with the narrow, sexist definition.
-Thus, of all rape victims surveyed 22% were raped by the made to penetrate, sexist definition. 77.5% were raped under the "made to penetrate" heading.
-Of rape, by the sexist definition, we have women as perpetrators 6.7% of the time. So 105 000 of those rapes were done by women. 79.2% were responsible for "made to penetrate" type rape. So, 4 317 000 rapes in this category were done by women.
105 000 + 4 317 000 0 = 4.422 million rapes being committed by a woman. Divide this by the total rapes (5.451 mil + 1.581 mil= 7.032 mil) and we get 62.8% So more, actually.
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf

Ready to stop the threadjack yet? You're only making yourself look worse in the sexist category. There's also nothing you can say that doesn't make you look like you're blaming the victim. Go start a thread on victim blaming if you want. We haven't had one in a few months, and it seems you didn't pay attention to the last one we did have.

I think my prediction is coming true.

[Snafturi]

Real names. The big problem is anonymity.

If that were true, Couch Surfing should be the happiest site on the internet. Instead you have just as much horribleness, but when someone says "I'm going to come beat you up" they can (and have) followed up on it. Also makes it that much scarier when someone makes rape threats.

No I missed the thread on victim blaming. I disagree and don't like it when people call me things I'm not and say i'm a horrible person I wouldn't have gone on this long but for the personal attack by another.

You hold reprehensible views, and I judge you based on them. That's not a personal attack.

You do bring up a very interesting point here, however. On topic even. If words were just words, as you claim, you wouldn't have been bothered at all. You certainly wouldn't have felt compelled to continue a thread jack. Perhaps because a silly nursery rhymeisn't all that accurate.

Now how about this, we shouldn't punish things online that aren't punished in real life

Wait, you're taking my position now?

like funeral trolling.

I don't think you know what that means. I already proved you had to idea what you were talking about when it came to WBC and protesting. As for Thatcher, as I've linked to earlier, there's a difference between public and private figures when it comes to slander, defamation and privacy. So if you're saying you want this girl's FB memorial to be held to the same standard as a public figure, you're conflating laws.

You can troll funerals in real life, but based on the bbc story and it sounds like people feel you should by law be prevented from trolling online memorials. It's this double standard I disagree with, what say you.

The above examples aren't trolling. Just because they are despicable acts, they aren't trolling. Plus, Thatcher is comparing apples and oranges unless you want to make the case that this girl was a public figure.

I think my prediction is coming true.

I've been wondering the same thing myself. But, I got a chance to refresh my memory on First Amendment case law, and it's not like people haven't brought up many of these same themes. So, not time wasted.

[The Norgan Alliance]

I think my prediction is coming true.

I've been wondering the same thing myself. But, I got a chance to refresh my memory on First Amendment case law, and it's not like people haven't brought up many of these same themes. So, not time wasted.

I have no idea what you're talking about, maybe I was a little vague, but this is what I was talking about.

I know this is off topic...

...but wouldn't it be funny if this thread got trolled!
Jump to post

[Ermarian]

that doesn't preclude a prosecution in a case rape if a women is dressed the wrong way or acts stupidly or makes herself a target. We still punish the perpetrator (again if the case can be proved), he doesn't get a pass just because the victim in the case is less than perfect.

Nope; that actually happens pretty regularly. If it even went to court (9%); if it even were reported (46%). [source]. Thanks to this kind of reasoning, victims in such cases are discouraged from even reporting an assault for fear of being stigmatized for it.

(Anyway, [/threadjack])

[Snafturi]

I've been wondering the same thing myself. But, I got a chance to refresh my memory on First Amendment case law, and it's not like people haven't brought up many of these same themes. So, not time wasted.

I have no idea what you're talking about, maybe I was a little vague, but this is what I was talking about.

I know this is off topic...

...but wouldn't it be funny if this thread got trolled!
Jump to post

Yeah, I know that's what you're referring to. I was in agreement with your sentiment, but decided a vague answer was the safest way to respond.

[New Rogernomics]

So how exactly should we make social media safe from systematic bullying and harassing, other than censorship?

Fine (or jail in serious cases) social media operators (i.e. especially forums and media sites) that show a complacent attitude towards cyber-bulling*, as well as those that actively discriminate against people on basis of sexual orientation, race, or religious views. The only other way is censorship, and shutting down social media sites.

I could name quite a few on the web that are terrible, would take up at least three A4 pages to name them all. Pretty much most of the sites that call themselves 'atheist forums', 'religious forums', and 'political forums' on a google search, are full of cyber-bulling members. A lot of forums on have an environment where the mods (or admins) participate in and/ actively encourage cyber-bulling towards those they disagree with. Video hosting sites like YouTube have some racist, and homophobic, members that go around trolling people, some of which I have had the misfortune of having to view the comments of. Nationstates is okay, but you can't say that for most sites on the internet.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

So how exactly should we make social media safe from systematic bullying and harassing, other than censorship?

Fine (or jail in serious cases) social media operators (i.e. especially forums and media sites) that show a complacent attitude towards cyber-bulling*, as well as those that actively discriminate against people on basis of sexual orientation, race, or religious views. The only other way is censorship, and shutting down social media sites.

I could name quite a few on the web that are terrible, would take up at least three A4 pages to name them all. Pretty much most of the sites that call themselves 'atheist forums', 'religious forums', and 'political forums' on a google search, are full of cyber-bulling members. A lot of forums on have an environment where the mods (or admins) participate in and/ actively encourage cyber-bulling towards those they disagree with. Video hosting sites like YouTube have some racist, and homophobic, members that go around trolling people, some of which I have had the misfortune of having to view the comments of. Nationstates is okay, but you can't say that for most sites on the internet.

Making owners of websites responsible is not always the option here if they did as much to try and quell them, and they are happy to cooperate with the police. Censorship must be used really carefully (it can lead to problems lke this), and only against the toughest of cyberbullying sites like jerk.com, where there is proof that such action will be generally uncontroversial.

[Lunalia]

Forcing people to use real names just makes them more visible targets for bullies who know them in real life, and are looking for them on the internet. To me, anonymity frees me from bullies, because I can use different names on every website I visit, and no one can follow me from one site to another. The most we can do is report bullying to the police. Threats to someone's life are crimes, whether on or offline.

[Communist republic of altorus]

Apparently (this has come from a few news sites) The girl sent most of the texts to herself. Which i believe, meaning her bullies weren't the only issue.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Of course its not only adults who loose the plot...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16 ... tterstorm/

A sample of twats from the reg article.



#donttouchbestsongever WE SPENT HOURS GETTING THIS SONG TO NUMBER 1 IN TURDY SEVEN COUNTRIES, TOUCH IT AND YOU DIE
— Stephanie (@mariliaRA1) August 15, 2013

#donttouchbestsongever you don't want to mess with directioners *cracks knuckles* pic.twitter.com/W17FBDJ3Gm
— ❤ ilysm liam ❤ (@l4rryy) August 15, 2013

I SWEAR TO GOD IF IT GETS DELETED YOU WILL BE IN LOTS OF DANGER YOU'LL HAVE 15M+ PISSED GIRLS AT YOUR DOOR #DontTouchBestSongEver
— THANK YOU LIAM ♡ (@flopyvalle) August 14, 2013

#DontTouchBestSongEver -OMG best song ever ?-YES -haha no,say goodbye to your familly U have 5 min - why ? i'll kill u o f course
— ❤ℬeℓiectioner∞★★★★★★ (@Sandysandzayn) August 14, 2013

#donttouchbestsongever or else you will wake up to billions of directioners with knives and guns -_________-
— ❤NiallPleaseFollow❤ (@theamazaynroxy) August 14, 2013

#donttouchbestsongever what the actual FUCK I'LL RAPE YOUR MOM
— ☻♥lex♥☻ (@louistopsinsex) August 14, 2013

#DontTouchBestSongEver or a lot of directioner gonna rape you....just an advice
— Mariah x (@MariahMnard) August 15, 2013