Lady Bits Kickstarter by Liana Kerzner

[Ogoid]

3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Is it, though? Because I can't see how that makes a lick of sense.

I mean, has there been any actual evidence, at any given point, that this was the case? Did anyone involved with the harassment in question actually say anything to that effect?

Because from where I'm standing, this looks like simply assuming their reasons, and putting a whole lot more thought into it than they themselves most likely did in the first place.

 

[Avnger]

3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Is it, though? Because I can't see how that makes a lick of sense.

I mean, has there been any actual evidence, at any given point, that this was the case? Did anyone involved with the harassment in question actually say anything to that effect?

Because from where I'm standing, this looks like simply assuming their reasons, and putting a whole lot more thought into it than they themselves most likely did in the first place.

So what are their reasons? Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

 

[inmunitas]

You do realize why people harass others in the first place, right? You know, the whole "getting people to shut up and back down through fear"-thing?

I think on the internet there generally isn't much stratagem behind it, people just do it because they are impulsive arseholes.

Regardless of your attempts to handwave away any critical thinking on the motive behind the harassment, are you honestly trying to claim that the massive amounts of harassment isn't what lead Anita's work to become well known?

I thought 'critical thinking' was the objective analysis of facts in order to form a judgment.

You are still trying to play semantic games instead of addressing the actual point.

No, sorry, that was a quip.

Do you have any evidence to refute the assertion that the harassment received by Anita was what lead to her formerly unknown youtube project to become the topic of news stories covering internet harassment and Anita speaking at a UN internet harassment-related event?

...

Information
1. Massive harassment was committed against Anita
2. The harassment was directly related to the feminism-framed critical analysis she was engaging in
3. The general purpose of harassment of this nature is to abuse someone into "going away" or stopping what they are doing

Now which is a more logical conclusion (if we're being intellectually honest):
A. The harassment was most likely perpetrated to try and get Anita to disappear or at least stop her work
B. IDK, My BFF Jill

So by your logic this "unknown youtube project" just received "massive harassment" spontaneously?

 

[Ogoid]

which is putting more thought into it

1) whiny male trolls hate thing,

...Yeah, it's entirely your assumption that all the trolls were male; not that it has any bearing I can see on anything whatsoever.

send death threats to say they hate thing and want it gone

I'm going to repeat myself yet again - is there any actual evidence of them "wanting it gone", and acting on the frankly magical thinking notion that insulting someone over the internet would have that result?

Or could it perhaps be, as inmunitas so aptly put, they were, for all we know, simply immature and impulsive idiots who didn't put a single second of rational thinking into it?

2) "well, the trolls could have a variety of reasons for sending hate mail and death threats. you cant walk in those peoples shoes anymore than you can gods. we know nothing about their motives or reasonings so you cant say they wanted Anita to stop by sending her mountains of hate mail and death threats. for all we know they wanted her to succeed"

Well, yes, when you yourself put more thought into things than simply knee-jerking and defaulting to the simplest, easiest explanation based on nothing but your personal biases, you tend to come up with a more nuanced opinion on said things. No disagreement here.

Again, though, I was referring to the thinking - or rather, lack thereof - going through the heads of the people sending her abuse.

So what are their reasons?

Why do trolls troll?

I don't know, and I wouldn't care to speculate. I'm pretty sure there's nothing worth seeking down that road.

But if I was to venture a guess, I'd say their hostility probably stemmed from figuring her "criticism" would amount to nothing but weaselly-worded moral condemnation and baseless claims of societal harm the likes of which we've all been intimately familiar with since the 90's. Good thing she went and proved them all wrong about that, too.

Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

For one, because I think that's overthinking the hell out of a phenomenon with a much simpler explanation [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/699/4fc.jpg]; and for two, I find that assuming other people's reasons and thought processes usually ends up saying more about my own than theirs.

 

[CaitSeith]

Mobbing is a very well-known and researched societal harassment type. Why do you insist on sticking your head in the sand over such a minor point?

edit:

For one, because I think that's overthinking the hell out of a phenomenon with a much simpler explanation [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/325/699/4fc.jpg];

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

and for two, I find that assuming other people's reasons and thought processes usually ends up saying more about my own than theirs.

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

 

[Ogoid]

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

Or the time and again observed fact that people will, given the anonymity of the internet, act like dicks simply because they can.

But perhaps we should have a serious academic body look into that first - seems right up the prestigious Maximegalon Institute's alley to me.

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: she put out what she said she would. That people gave her more money on top of that is neither her fault nor did it obligate her to do extra work she didn't say she was going to.

EDIT: If I ask people for $20 to make a gallon of potato salad, and I say that if I get $40 I'll make two gallons of potato salad, and my project goes so viral I get $2000, I'm not then obligated to make 100 gallons of potato salad.

 

[CaitSeith]

The funny thing about that is how the most common (or at least louder) criticism about Anita isn't towards her arguments, but towards assumptions of her reasons ("she is a con artist") and thought process ("to her, everything is sexist").

I mean, I don't really recall saying either, but seems to me both are substantiated on her actual actions, producing a staggering 5 hours worth of video over 5 years with a greater budget than those of several actual feature films with actors and filming locations and all that jazz, and the substance of the so-called arguments she put forth, either in said videos or on any of her regally remunerated talks.

I never said you said them. Otherwise I would ask you to provide verifiable evidence that support that such claims aren't just arbitrary personal judgement or coming from misinformed opinions; and overall, I would ask why they are relevant to her arguments (beyond being red herrings and straw men).

 

[CaitSeith]

What to trust? A well-documented research with several sources and academic analysis? Or an Internet meme? Tough choice IMO.

Or the time and again observed fact that people will, given the anonymity of the internet, act like dicks simply because they can.

But perhaps we should have a serious academic body look into that first - seems right up the prestigious Maximegalon Institute's alley to me.

Like how surprisingly obvious was for everyone that Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it, when in reality neither of them is true? Jeez, the anti-science is strong in that sarcasm.

 

[RaikuFA]

Ms. Sarkeesian made the Time Magazine list of "The 100 Most Influential People In The World", for crying out loud.

So did the Kardashians, not a credible list IMO.

 

[Jupiter178]

So did the Kardashians, not a credible list IMO.

Keeping Up With the Kardashians has been running for 10 years and has millions of viewers. Kim Kardashian has more than 100 million followers on Instagram alone, and her estimated net worth is $150 million. You might not like the reasons she's famous, but you'd have to be in deep denial to say that her presence on Time's list damages the credibility of the list.

 

[Jupiter178]

And Sarkeesian spoke to the UN

The criticism of her (and by extension Kardashians) inclusion has more to do with the content than the scope.

Huh? The only test of credibility for a list of the most influential people in the world is whether or not those people are influential. Whether you like the ways in which they're influential is irrelevant. It's not a list of the 100 Most Coolest and Smartest and Nicest and Most Talented People in the World. Scope is what matters, not content. TIME didn't pick Donald Trump as Person of the Year because they think he's super cool.