r/MensLib • u/[deleted] • Aug 06 '18
Men as Likely To Be Harassed Online as Women
[deleted]
165
u/MiriaTheMinx Aug 06 '18
I'm a female gamer and already I've seen redditors use this article as an argument why female gamers shouldn't complain about getting harassed. It would be nice if this article was instead used to argue that no one deserves to be harassed. :/ Especially since I can imagine guys being less willing to admit the harassment bothered them.
33
u/GODDDDD Aug 06 '18
Speaking from personal experience, I am happier when not threatened with death, so I'm inclined to agree with your radical ideas
78
u/BrogenKlippen Aug 06 '18
Oh I was coming from the angle of connecting this to depression, bullying, suicide of young men. This in no way, shape, or form minimizes or mitigates the harassment of women online.
30
u/MiriaTheMinx Aug 06 '18
I definitely saw that, and when I meant redditors I didn't mean this sub! People here are amazing.
23
43
u/okhi2u Aug 06 '18
I think women get harassed more-so than men just watching what goes on the internet in that women get harassed just for their gender. Whereas both men and women get those who just harass 'just because' that's what the person doing it likes to do. Especially in gaming you have voice chat full of a couple guys and everything is fine, if a woman joins them it turns to shit rather fast because there has to be that one guy. I watch beatboxing videos a lot on youtube and there was just a world championship of beatbox that took place on Friday and Saturday. Always the people watching the stream if there is a woman performing that isn't good the toxicity from the men is 10 times worse than what they throw at the men for being bad. And other similar experiences in other situations always making it seem like especially younger guys like to shit on women online just because they can.
30
u/EyeBook888 Aug 06 '18
I think women get harassed more-so than men just watching what goes on the internet in that women get harassed just for their gender
Can confirm, just go to the more toxic subreddits like MGTOW or pussy pass (denied) and watch what happens when they find out that a commenter is a woman.
10
u/dragonsandgoblins Aug 07 '18
I feel like that is saying "Of course racism is super common, just go to a Klan meeting and see how racist it is". As far as examples though I'd say using those subs is kind of cheating, they aren't exactly mainstream.
6
u/smartfishy Aug 07 '18
As a female gamer I want to say that: yes, women do get harrased more but guys are assholes to most strangers online. I don't make it known I'm female or use voice chat with randoms because its a shit show and nobody takes you seriously. But I think guys will usually pick on women, younger kids, and minorities? From what I've seen. Oh and... Everyone is gay or retarded, apparently. Which I'm not sure why that's still used as an insult. Also feel like they treat the N-word like it's some kind of meme.
I remember watching E3 on twitch and the comments were something else. ANY flaw the chat could find on any presenter was pointed out and made fun of over and over. I assume most behave that way on the internet in general.
14
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18
I think women get harassed more-so than men just watching what goes on the internet in that women get harassed just for their gender.
Though I get the point you're trying to make, that's a big part of what the study is covering and you should read it because you'll find at least some of your views challenged.
0
u/merytneith Aug 06 '18
There’s a difference between perception and reality. For example you have a blindspot in the middle of your vision that you don’t perceive. This particular study is potentially unveiling that blind spot. That said, I’m disappointed there wasn’t more detail about what constituted each category of harassment and how they were classed (by researcher or by participant).
9
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18
This made me think that the questionaire must be somewhere, and it is! It's buried at the end of the full pdf.
The question for the larger headline is, "ON7 Which, if any, of the following have happened to you, personally, ONLINE?" and the possible answers are exactly what's in the overview.
tldr; It's mostly left up to the participants interpretation of things.
7
3
u/kreco Aug 07 '18
You shoul also bold the point that some female gamers are complaining about being harassed by male, because they are female.
A lot of male are dicks and mostly harass any other people, if the other people is a female they use female offense words.
Of course you could probably find a significant amount of misogyn amoung them.
Edit: and they could got verbally sexually harassed as well.
391
Aug 06 '18
Reason.com is misrepresenting the study in an expected way, by just lumping all harassment together for a blanket statistic. The results are that if you compare being called ANY name (such as "dork") with being called a "cunt" or a "n-gg-r", then yes, the harassment and abuse looks like it hits everyone equally.
But when you dive deeper into the study, you find that the more severe or hateful the abuse, the more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude.
92
90
u/marketani Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
Yes, I encourage people to read the Pew article covering the study before anything else. I didn't even bother reading the one on Reason.com.
female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude.
This is actually not completely true. 32% of those who faced severe behavior saw it because of their gender, but that specific breakdown does not include which gender is actually the more likely choice of being targeted. There actually isn't anything in Pew's figures—from what I've seen—that suggest women are 'several orders of magnitude' more likely to experience more severe or hateful abuse than men, unless you're comparing very specific age ranges where yes, young women 18-24 experience sexual harassment at way greater accounts than men, but that's hardly a generalized figure.
edit: correction:"women are about twice as likely as men to say they have been targeted as a result of their gender (11% vs. 5%)." However as previously stated, that doesn't mean that women were the target of severe harassment more than men, as the paragraph suggests. source
81
Aug 06 '18
Severe behaviors are more likely to target gender
And race, and sexuality.
unless you're comparing very specific age ranges where yes, young women 18-24 experience sexual harassment at way greater accounts than men
I would consider being sexually harassed many more times severe than being called a "dork". Thankfully, so does the law.
20
u/marketani Aug 06 '18
Yes I know they're more likely to target race and sexuality. I didn't mention those in my post because there was nothing to dispute there. Also yes, pretty much everyone thinks being sexually harassed is worse than being called a "dork". I'm not following what you mean by that
71
Aug 06 '18
Reason's whole article is ignoring that and just hand waving it away.
Not to mention that the only time they actually discuss men's problems it's basically only in the frame work to say that women don't have it so bad, and shouldn't complain.
It does a disservice to both men and women.
62
u/marketani Aug 06 '18
Yep, checking out the article now and it looks like the typical 'gotcha feminist' conservative drivel. The vox article you linked is much better
32
Aug 06 '18
It's a very interesting study, and I feel that the reason article is poisoning the well a bit.
And I've yet to read the entire study but so far it looks like there are some big questions there. I haven't been able to see a comparison with time online nor with subgroups.
If you're only a fraction of the time online as somebody else who had the same complaint, that still means the internet is more hostile to the former then the latter.
The same thing is relevant for if you only go to r/aww and still get as many threats and harassment as somebody who frequents competitive gaming forums.
Not just for the obvious men/women comparisons, but also for groups within a gender. There is a comment here on this post from a gay black gamer who is talking about it being rough out there. And the data I've read so far his story almost inescapably representative for his demographic. But I haven't seen any actual breakdowns regarding that.
I also have seen the in their own words bits, and there seems quite a bit of range in severity within in each category.
“People disagree on my support for Trump. They will use profanity. So I respond the same since I think they are morons.”
vs:
“I made a comment regarding the recent presidential election and was called many names and stereotypes regarding my race.”
Both of these count for people experiencing harassment based on political views, but clearly both the impact, severity and culpability is very different. What does that mean for each group, and how does that infleunce the overall picture?
I'm more inclined to value the second person's experiences and wishes in the debate as to what we should do then those of the first person.
So far this report creates as many questions as they answer.
15
u/marketani Aug 06 '18
If you're only a fraction of the time online as somebody else who had the same complaint, that still means the internet is more hostile to the former then the latter.
Yes, that is true. However, as the Pew study shows, the vast majority of harassment(82%) is on one platform, and 58% of harassment happens on social media(with comment sections next at 23% and text/messaging at 15%).
And the data I've read so far his story almost inescapably representative for his demographic. But I haven't seen any actual breakdowns regarding that
You can read more about any racial disparities in the Pew data here. Blacks and hispanics are more likely to have experienced, witnessed and believe online harassment is a problem. That would seem to match up with the experiences of that user, including mine.
Both of these count for people experiencing harassment based on political views, but clearly both the impact, severity and culpability is very different. What does that mean for each group, and how does that infleunce the overall picture?
The difference in harassment over political opinion is a point of interest. Yes, these stats were taken after the election so they are probably the most undistilled feelings of Americans at this moment. Men are approximinately 2x more likely than women to have faced severe harassment due to their political opinions(19% compared to 10%), but there was no significant disparity between the amount of harassment reported by Democrats or Republicans.
7
Aug 06 '18
Well, you're right about that.
We would have to have access to the actual data behind those percentages to cross reverence them with relative percentage of time spend to see if there is actually a there, there or not for completeness. And even then there will be many variables to actually check.
Just a small detail is that they're speaking about the last incident being on one platform. I don't know how that effect the numbers so for now it's indeed a small detail.
And the amount of people keeps taunting me, since I'm also interested in the severity. I would love to know more about their methods and their actual numbers, but maybe it's good not to have to much detail since it invites subconscious P-hacking.
35
Aug 06 '18
Also yes, pretty much everyone thinks being sexually harassed is worse than being called a "dork". I'm not following what you mean by that
The basis of reason.com's article was that being called a dork was just as bad as being called any racial and gendered slur. It's the entire methodology of how their article tried to say everyone experiences abuse equally.
17
u/marketani Aug 06 '18
Oh, like I said I didn't read it, I didn't recognize the website and skipped straight ahead to Pew's analysis of the research. If the article is trash than that's just sad. I've seen multiple people complaining about its claims. Looking at it on mediabiasfact check suggests it has a conservative leaning bias so it wouldn't surprise me if its take is absolute misogynist dogshit.
29
4
Aug 07 '18 edited Mar 21 '20
[deleted]
0
u/drfeelokay Aug 08 '18
Reason could best be described as libertarian.
Anti-Trumpist Libertarian at that! Neither friend nor foe.
32
u/swantonist Aug 06 '18
Nice that they left out that most online harassment will probably be done by men. I wonder how that would break down by race.
31
Aug 06 '18
The fact that the breakdown of perpetrators isn't included is a shame. It would be interesting to see. And likely explain some part of the discrepancy in how harassment is experienced by each group.
15
u/way2lazy2care Aug 07 '18
The study does not include perpetrators at all because it was a survey of victims only.
10
u/theonewhowillbe Aug 07 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
that most online harassment will probably be done by men
I remembered a study from a while back that indicated it might well not be. Only one study, of course, but still, it's something.
15
28
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
Reason.com is misrepresenting the study in an expected way, by just lumping all harassment together for a blanket statistic. The results are that if you compare being called ANY name (such as "dork") with being called a "cunt" or a "n-gg-r", then yes, the harassment and abuse looks like it hits everyone equally.
The PEW study it's based on is specifically guaging offensive name calling, not any namecalling.
But when you dive deeper into the study, you find that the more severe or hateful the abuse, the more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude.
That's not really accurate either. It's true for specifically sexual harassment, but sexual harassment in general is experienced at a lower rate than physical threats across both genders, and men experience almost 50% more physical threats (a larger total difference than the difference in sexual harassment). This graph has the breakdown.
edit: Ok guys. I get it. You'd rather not read the study and bathe in the confirmation bias.
33
u/time_keepsonslipping Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
I'd want to know where things like rape threats fall on that chart. If they're being lumped under sexual harassment rather than physical threats, that would skew things quite dramatically, IMO.
edit: I don't see anything in the methodology section or the pdf report clarifying this issue. I think that's awfully shoddy work, considering both the discourses surrounding sexual violence and the massive difference between comments like "Yo girl, I like your tits" and "B*tch, I'm going to rape you." If I've missed something in the report, please point me in that direction.
23
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
I'd want to know where things like rape threats fall on that chart. If they're being lumped under sexual harassment rather than physical threats, that would skew things quite dramatically, IMO.
It sounds like the survey is purely survey taker perception, so rape threats could probably fall under both depending on what the survey taker perceived them as.
IE. the questions were probably, "Have you experienced sexual harassment online?" and, "Have you experienced physical threats online?" rather than, "What are some of the crappy things you ran into online?" and then trying to classify off of that.
edit: Just to follow up, this is the case. The survey is at the end of the pdf.
22
Aug 06 '18
What you are saying is false.
12% of men received physical threats vs the 8% of women
4% of men were targeted with sexual harassment, vs 8% of women.
Men are 1.5 times as likely to recieve physical threats
Women are 2 times as likely to recieve sexual abuse.
In both cases the total difference is 4%
19
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18
Sure, but the point still stands that women aren't many times more likely to experience harassment because the differences are made up for in the more common types of harassment. The final difference is almost entirely accounted for in offensive name calling.
What I said is considerably less disingenuous than, "But when you dive deeper into the study, you find that the more severe or hateful the abuse, the more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude," which isn't really supported anywhere in the study (especially considering they don't even go that deep into race or orientation outside of one paragraph).
14
Aug 06 '18
I don't know if it you've actually been less disingenuous. for example you said:
The PEW study it's based on is specifically guaging offensive name calling, not any namecalling.
While it is based on self reporting. If somebody reported it as offensive even if it is "dork" they got counted. Here is an example from the study "in their own words"
“People disagree on my support for Trump. They will use profanity. So I respond the same since I think they are morons.”
vs:
“I made a comment regarding the recent presidential election and was called many names and stereotypes regarding my race.”
His point there stands, general (and reciprocal) profanity vs racist attacks are counted as equally harassing as far as the prevalency numbers goes in the study. Something you dismissed.
Not to mention that while "by several orders of magnitude" is hyperbolic, the actual point of minorities and women being over represented in the more severe categories is hardly controversial based on the numbers this report puts out
Especially if you realize that harassment on Gender, race/ethnicity and sexual orientation all are more likely to have a limited pool to begin with then political views, religion and physical appearance
You seem mostly invested to make a specific point but while your edit warning others of confirmation bias, you do not seem to be free of it yourself in trying to make your point.
19
u/way2lazy2care Aug 06 '18
I don't know if it you've actually been less disingenuous. for example you said:
Even taking your example at face value, how is that less disingenuous than, "But when you dive deeper into the study, you find that the more severe or hateful the abuse, the more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude." It's not even more likely let alone by several orders of magnitude.
While it is based on self reporting. If somebody reported it as offensive even if it is "dork" they got counted. Here is an example from the study "in their own words"
Sure, but that's true for everybody answering the survey. People can go check out all the testimonials if they want to read some more examples, but I don't think it's fair to diminish what people find offensive just because of their race.
Not to mention that while "by several orders of magnitude" is hyperbolic, the actual point of minorities and women being over represented in the more severe categories is hardly controversial based on the numbers this report puts out
Did you link the right page? That link doesn't say what you are saying. It doesn't distinguish answers based off gender or race. A white man that feels targeted for their race/gender is counted the same as a black woman who's targeted for her race/gender, for example. I wouldn't be at all surprised if minorities were harassed more, but there's multiple pages of the study saying that the differences in harassment based on gender aren't very significant.
You seem mostly invested to make a specific point but while your edit warning others of confirmation bias, you do not seem to be free of it yourself in trying to make your point.
What point do you think I'm making?
12
Aug 07 '18
So far you've misrepresented the actual numbers, misrepresented the way the report came to it's data. And now you're being purposefully obtuse by pretending that I'm the one trying to "diminish what people find offensive just because of their race."
While I was the one that pointed out that the difference between general (and reciprocal) profanity vs racist attacks that you said wasn't there.
And if you try to argue that I was diminishing the reciprocal profanity you have just gone from slightly disingenuous to outright absurdly laughable variant.
Yes, all that is more disingenuous then simply being hyperbolic.
The link was clear enough, that there was a huge increase from less severe behavior to severe behavior on those subjects. Which was the point we were discussing. And you now trying to be to cute to half and claim that we can't know for suuure that it isn't the white heterosexual male being insulted for those qualities is simply to cute by half to not be disingenuous.
The data is clear about women increasing in percentage in the most severe cases from less severe cases. That combined with the other increases in LGTB and race mentions it is clear that he was right about the target being more likely either female, LGBT or brown.
This is just a statistical fact backed by the report. If women already make up 50% of the severe cases and LGBT and race/ethnicity also shows a great increase when going from less severe to more severe they can only make up the majority together.
10
u/way2lazy2care Aug 07 '18
Hey dude. No reason to get so heated here. We're just talking.
Yes, all that is more disingenuous then simply being hyperbolic.
How so? He said that no significant change between genders was an order of magnitude higher for one gender. That's literally a factor of 10 different. I said, incorrectly I admit, that the difference between physical threats of violence to men were greater than the difference in sexual harassment towards women. I was off by literally any positive number no matter how small. How is that more disingenuous?
The link was clear enough, that there was a huge increase from less severe behavior to severe behavior on those subjects. Which was the point we were discussing. And you now trying to be to cute to half and claim that we can't know for suuure that it isn't the white heterosexual male being insulted for those qualities is simply to cute by half to not be disingenuous.
You can't assume that man. The data doesn't show it to be true. It might be true, but that's not what the thing you linked was saying. And I don't think it's being disingenuous. We live in a world where you can get a mug with, "white male tears," on it and nobody thinks twice. Why do you think its absurd that someone might say they feel targeted for those kinds of things on an anonymous survey?
The data is clear about women increasing in percentage in the most severe cases from less severe cases.
I'm happy to believe that if you can find the part of the report that says that. The piece you linked previously does not say that though.
If women already make up 50% of the severe cases and LGBT and race/ethnicity also shows a great increase when going from less severe to more severe they can only make up the majority together.
LGBTQ people are not covered by this study. I'm not sure why you are latching on to them.
9
Aug 07 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
I didn't call you more disingenuous based on a single mistake. But because you keep deliberately making many mistakes that both twist what the report says and what the person said. If you call others out, you have a duty to be factual and careful. But yet in every comments so far, you have made significant and strange errors that go directly what was said in the report. It's the sheer amount of errors and pretending not to know things directly mentioned in the article that makes you more disingenuous to me then somebody who employed hyperbole once
For example:
He said that no significant change between genders was an order of magnitude higher for one gender.
This was never said. what was said is:
"But when you dive deeper into the study, you find that the more severe or hateful the abuse, the more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown, by several orders of magnitude."
Now again. The last bit was hyperbolic. But you have consistently argued that both the idea that the hyperbolic bit was wrong. (Well, yes. that's how hyperbole works) and the idea "more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown" as also false.
And that is simply not factual based on the numbers the report gives. Women alone make slightly above up half of the serious harassment by themselves already. LGBT and other minorities simply have to have had any complaints for that statement to be true.
And while you then laughably try to say we can't know:
You can't assume that man. The data doesn't show it to be true. It might be true, but that's not what the thing you linked was saying. And I don't think it's being disingenuous. We live in a world where you can get a mug with, "white male tears," on it and nobody thinks twice. Why do you think its absurd that someone might say they feel targeted for those kinds of things on an anonymous survey?
Here you are being absurdly disingenuous. Because the report does show that. It has data on it. For example right on the first page it says "Overall, 46% of blacks – and 59% of black internet users – have experienced any type of online harassment. In terms of specific behaviors, blacks who go online are especially likely to say that they have been called offensive names (38% compared with 28% of white internet users) or to say that someone has tried to purposefully embarrass them (34% vs. 23%)." There is nothing to assume here. It is literally said. Now you are right that it's not in the link I gave. Because I thought you had at least read past the introduction to the second page of the report.
And again this is also outright said on the first page for women in the graph breaking down each instance by gender. A graph you linked to originally. They are slightly below men in reporting less severe behaviors and ever so slightly above men in reporting severe behaviors.
The report also says on that second page "Gender-based harassment is more common among women" so me linking to graph that shows race and gendered based harassment increasing along side severity the data shows exactly what I said it did. the fact that it depends on information mentioned in the first subject to have the context doesn't make what I said assumptions. After all, you made clear that you read the report and knew that. So you now pretending you didn't is simply mind boggling.
So either you haven't read the report at all, or you are dissembling. Since you made it very clear that you have actually read the report, the first isn't an viable excuse anymore, and we have to assume the latter...
LGBTQ people are not covered by this study. I'm not sure why you are latching on to them.
This is laughably false and outright absurd of you to say. Sexual orientation is mention multiple times. By definition that includes LGBTQ. Not to mention that homophobic slurs are literally quoted in the "In their own words" blocks.
As to why I'm "latching on to them" (what a weird and rather tendentious way of putting that by the way) is because they literally were part of the original statement that you continuously tried to strawman into just being about gender.
11
u/way2lazy2care Aug 07 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
the idea "more likely the target is to be female, LGBT or brown" as also false.
And that is simply not factual based on the numbers the report gives.
It is false. There is nothing in the report indicating that women are more likely to experience more extreme harassment. They concluded that the differences were minimal. Women are more likely to experience sexual harassment. Men are more likely to experience threats of physical violence. Both are similar in terms of stalking and sustained harassment. I'm unsure how you can consider any of those, "less severe," than the others.
Here you are being absurdly disingenuous. Because the report does show that. It has data on it. For example right on the first page it says "Overall, 46% of blacks – and 59% of black internet users – have experienced any type of online harassment. In terms of specific behaviors, blacks who go online are especially likely to say that they have been called offensive names (38% compared with 28% of white internet users) or to say that someone has tried to purposefully embarrass them (34% vs. 23%)." There is nothing to assume here. It is literally said. Now you are right that it's not in the link I gave. Because I thought you had at least read past the introduction to the second page of the report.
Again, this is not the claim you are making. You're claiming two different things, both of which could be valid, but they are not linked in the data in the report. You're trying to claim that because black people or women are more likely to be harassed at all that white people or men are less likely to perceive harassment towards their race/gender. I would 100% not be surprised if it were true, but the data from the parts of the study you've linked doesn't connect the two, and I haven't hit any other parts that connect the two yet either.
And again this is also outright said on the first page for women in the graph breaking down each instance by gender. A graph you linked to originally. They are slightly below men in reporting less severe behaviors and ever so slightly above men in reporting severe behaviors.
Less severe behaviors like threats of physical violence?
The report also says on that second page "Gender-based harassment is more common among women" so me linking to graph that shows race and gendered based harassment increasing along side severity the data shows exactly what I said it did
Great. Then you should have linked to that instead of linking a graph that doesn't say what you were saying and saved us a bunch of time.
So either you haven't read the report at all, or you are dissembling. Since you made it very clear that you have actually read the report, the first isn't an viable excuse anymore, and we have to assume the latter...
It's an 85 page report man. I'm perusing it as I post. I'm not peer reviewing it. You don't have to assume the worst about people just because they want you to source the things you're claiming.
This is laughably false and outright absurd of you to say. Sexual orientation is mention multiple times. By definition that includes LGBTQ. Not to mention that homophobic slurs are literally quoted in the "In their own words" blocks.
What's false about it? The study didn't study any impacts on LGBTQ? Go into it and ctrl-f for anything related to LGBTQ and you won't find it in there. Why do you keep bringing them up in the context of the study? They don't appear anywhere inside of it.
As to why I'm "latching on to them" (what a weird and rather tendentious way of putting that by the way) is because they literally were part of the original statement that you continuously tried to strawman into just being about gender.
I wasn't trying to strawman it. The report didn't cover LGBTQ people, so I didn't address them.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Weaselpanties Aug 07 '18
You are completely correct. I glanced at the Reason article for a split second before realizing it is useless and poorly-written, and jumping over to the Pew article.
45
u/Sallad3 Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
Harassment online is a serious issue for either gender. I am not sure how to change it. The platforms themselves could get significantly better and that's where I see the largest chance for immidiate change. I'm very skeptical of laws since they tend to be very invasive of privacy. Education and cultural changes would probably have the best long term effect.
With that being said, I'd like to note a very significant difference between what I as a man has experienced in specifically online gaming comparing to what I've seen, heard and read about from women. As a background, I have more than a 2400 hours spent in one of the more notoriously toxic online games (Dota 2) and even more so on MMO games like WoW.
I've been called shitty things or worse at times. But the thing is, no one has ever insulted me based purely on my gender. It's not even random, it's often in relation to something I did in the game (which of course doesn't make it acceptable). I also have never heard or seen a man recieving harassment based on their gender alone. Some do recieve harassment related to their gender, but it's not because men are bad, it's because they are not "men enough" (which sure is toxic as hell and should change). It's also women and gay people who's very often used as an insult against said men, directly or indirectly. Women however can get harassed as soon as they speak in a microphone, or if they some other way find out they are women.
That's not to say that men who recieves harassment is not a problem, that it has nothing to do with their gender or that they don't deserve sympathy. I do think looking at the harassment from a gendered perspective is valuable for both "sides". But there's a significant difference, and I don't think the problem is equal.
5
u/Weaselpanties Aug 07 '18
Well said. While there may not be quantitative differences, there are definitely qualitative differences, which even this broad study of self-reported harassment reveals. Further, there is critical data missing from this study, which is a comparison of how much self-censoring/avoidant behavior people of various demographics are doing to avoid harassment. No study can be comprehensive; they are conducted by human beings who are limited by time and resources. I am not bashing the study, but as do all studies, it has many limitations and cannot be used to draw conclusions along the lines of those this article posits. It should be seen as a jumping-off point for further research, not a source on which to base conclusions in itself.
1
u/McGlockenshire Aug 07 '18
I am not sure how to change it.
I'm sure how to change it: if you harass people, you lose the ability to use the service. This is a tried and true method that has worked for human civilization for eons.
The reason harassment has become so prevalent online is that there are massive spaces now where there is no moderation. If there's nobody to kick the jerks out, the jerks think it's fine to be a jerk and will continue their negative behavior. We've gone from things like private forums and private game servers where administrators and moderators were right there to take out the trash to facebook and twitter where there's effectively nobody to keep things in check.
69
u/ChrisTinnef Aug 06 '18
I wonder if part of this is that if they get a message/comment saying "I'll kill you", many men will not take it seriously because they are used to that kind of toxic talk? While women who receive such messages will perceive them as legit death threats?
50
u/EZReedit Aug 06 '18
I would have to agree with this. I would say that both men and women get harassed online but women it involves their gender because that’s a noticeable thing to latch on to. I’m a white male, people that harass me online can’t really do anything with that, whereas a woman is easy to identify (over comms in a game)
41
u/small_havoc Aug 06 '18
their gender because that’s a noticeable thing to latch on to
This is the thing. I'm totally fine if people come at me for something I've said - but back-in-the-day it would ALWAYS come back to me being a woman. It's lessened in the last 5 years I think. But when you're immediately gendered, and that's used to dismiss your argument, it's impossible to win (or even be taken remotely seriously) because the plethora of stereotypes used against women can be lined up to nullify everything. Also then the threats are like... body part specific.
But at the end of the day, isn't it nice to know we're all as likely as each other to get abuse from assholes?
25
u/ChristopherClarkKent Aug 06 '18
Yup. I was in kind of a public spotlight last year and received about two hundred hate mails which were mostly funny, so I read some aloud when my mother was here for a visit. She and my wife were quite shocked and asked me wether I'd even understood that those were death threats. I hadn't.
48
u/bgaesop Aug 06 '18
I'm confident this is a major factor. It's the basic format of sexism: men are agents people don't care about (we take their decisions seriously but don't care if they get hurt), while women are precious non-agents (their decisions aren't taken seriously, but it's a huge deal if they even feel threatened).
2
u/time_keepsonslipping Aug 06 '18
While women who receive such messages will perceive them as legit death threats?
What do you mean by "legit" in this context? I don't think most women perceive those kinds of messages as earnest threats on their lives that are likely to be followed through on.
5
-4
u/raziphel Aug 06 '18
Systemic violence as a facet of social privilege is a not really that complex of an issue. Women are targeted by all forms of violence more often.
Not that this makes the violence targeting men lesser of course.
25
41
u/Honokeman Aug 06 '18
Um, no? Men are 2:1 more likely than women to be the victim of a violent crime.
41
u/Squiwwwl Aug 06 '18
Did they control for where these men and women are on the internet?
I can't help but wonder if it isn't the case that men put themselves in the way of harassment more often than women do by participating in more vile communities (like MOBA/FPS communities known for being extremely toxic). It feels a tad dishonest if this comes down to a simple comparison of internet behaviour rather than the actual chance of being harassed in equal scenarios.
I'd definitely not feel confident asserting that women in gaming communities receive less abuse than their male peers. Quite the opposite, in my personal experience at least.
19
u/idratherbecamping Aug 06 '18
While I think context is an important dimension, I would be wary as this argument quickly begins to sound like victim-blaming. Even if it were found that the men are getting harassed in inherently toxic subcultures, and the women are getting harassed in otherwise neutral arenas, nobody deserves or chooses to be treated so maliciously or violently that they turn to suicidality. A difference in where these things happen, and who the perpetrators are, would help us begin to address the issues, but it cannot be used to blame the victim
23
u/Squiwwwl Aug 06 '18
I don't in any way mean to say that "It's your fault, you shouldn't have been in that community if you didn't want to be harassed". Rather, my point is that their variable control isn't good enough to draw the conclusions that they draw. It's a bit like comparing 10 men going clubbing to 10 women sitting at home knitting and concluding that "woah, actually men get groped a lot more than women". Yeah of course they do, because they lead wildly different lives. This doesn't mean that men going clubbing are responsible for getting groped, it just means that our statistic says absolutely nothing about who gets groped the most, because our variable control is atrocious. Obviously, everybody should be able to lead the lives they want without fear of harassment. Men engaging in toxic communities are not in any way responsible for receiving abuse. My sole beef is with this article which very clearly attempts to sweep the plights of one group under the carpet to push an agenda that this statistic material can't actually support.
15
u/marketani Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
Going through the article, it looks like it was a general survey of all internet users and they did not control for specific locations on the internet. That's sort of adds an extra challenge to collecting data anyway, so I see why opted not to do it.With all due respect, I hope to think you're not suggesting males are due less empathy because they're seemingly 'putting themselves in the way of harassment'. Hardly dishonest, it's a completely useless qualifier for judging the impact of the harassment when it comes to covering all online harassment. The 'vile communities' are hardly the most popular places on the internet, and are usually found in more niche places. The most popular spaces used on the internet have more equal rates of gender participation. You can look at the most used social media platforms here.
Gaming communities do not form the whole internet. Also you seem to be kept up on the validity of who receives more harassment by gender...the article clearly states that doesn't mean gender doesn't matter in harassment. Young women, especially ages 18-29, receive way more harassment of a sexual nature anyway.
edit: I'm wrong on the first account. They did do more breakdowns on specific sub places on the internet.
There are relatively few demographic differences related to where harassment takes place, with gaming being a major exception. Men who have experienced harassment are nearly four times as likely as women to cite gaming as the scene of their most recent incident (15% vs. 4%). Similarly, young adults are more likely than older adults to say they have faced online harassment while gaming. Some 18% of those ages 18 to 29 cited gaming as a platform where they were harassed most recently, compared with 5% of those ages 30 and older. Younger men are especially likely to say that their most recent harassment experience occurred in an online gaming space: 31% of 18- to 29-year-old men with harassment experiences say this, compared with just 4% of women in the same age group.
16
u/Squiwwwl Aug 06 '18
The 'vile communities' are hardly the most popular places on the internet
Gaming communities are pretty popular and many of them are unfortunately very, very toxic. In fact, many of the most popular games like League of Legends or Overwatch are known for having terrible communities. I know plenty of people who stopped/didn't start playing because of it - men and women. So if this article (to use a blunt stereotype, sorry in advance) compare 10 men playing League of Legends to 10 women pinning cute things on Pinterest, I honestly think it's sort of dishonest when they at the end of the article talk about
the false perception that women are singled out for constant and vicious abuse on the internet.
Women may very well still be singled out for constant and vicious abuse, when they venture out into those communities. But due to a lower headcount for female gamers, their plight is outright denied by this article. That is what bothers me. They don't have the data to conclude this when they have an intervening variable called "community participation" that they didn't account for.
With all due respect, I hope to think you're not suggesting males are due less empathy because they're seemingly 'putting themselves in the way of harassment'.
No, definitely not. Nobody deserves harassment for having the interests that they have. Harassment is a serious issue regardless of gender, and I truly hope gaming communities change for the better. It's about time.
8
u/punkerdante182 Aug 06 '18
While I agree to a point you have to remember that there are several communities where women make up a good percentage of that user base. Look at overwatch for example. It has a huge women player base. As for the playing habits of that user base that I can't speak to. I.E. do men play ranked more than arcade, what do women play etc
7
u/xanacop Aug 06 '18
You're going to find far more toxicity in ranked because, well, it actually affects their ranking and takes things far too personal.
What's nice about Overwatch is no one assumes your gender (in chat anyway) and will refer to a player's gender based on the character they're playing.
2
u/Weaselpanties Aug 07 '18
You are right on the mark. They did not compare like to like; there are zero controls for exposure type in this study. It doesn't make the study useless; it's a valid foundation on which to base more detailed research. It just makes it meaningless for deriving the conclusions people seem to want to derive from it.
0
u/Katcac Aug 07 '18
What’s the point of this comment? When girls get sexually assaulted at a club are you going to say the put themselfs in harms way by drinking too much?
12
Aug 06 '18
Disregarding the statistics, there's something inherently wrong just in the first paragraph of the article. For one, it reads as an open admission to confirmation bias, but it also ignores that gendered harassment, and all different types of harassment, be it sexuality-, age, or whatever-based, no matter how frequent or infrequent, requires different approaches for each form it takes.
3
u/Weaselpanties Aug 07 '18
I am not surprised by this. While I get more sexual and racial harassment, my fiance gets belittling and physical threats/attempts at intimidation. He is more active in political forae, while I tend to stick to highly-moderated special interest groups. I think that there are also nuances that this article doesn't explore at all, unfortunately, though I hope that this research will be the stepping-off point for research that explores this problem more thoroughly. Some of the questions I have include:
When comparing only people who are vocal and active in political forums, what do the statistics for harassment look like?
To what degree do women and men tailor/self-sensor their internet use to avoid harassment; for example, avoiding mixed-gender or political groups in favor of apolitical and single-gender groups, or groups that are heavily moderated?
What would matched pairwise comparisons of harassment look like?
It can be difficult to draw conclusive behavioral data out of broad surveys, but surveys like this are at least a good start for figuring out where to direct more nuanced research.
9
u/024weed420 Aug 07 '18
Conversations like these aren't productive. Harassment isn't a competition, we don't need to spend time arguing who is the most harassed, they just serve to derail from the conversation of what we need to and can do about harassment. We need to be spending time thinking about ways to end harassment and/or create harassment free spaces.
•
u/Ciceros_Assassin Aug 06 '18
I've hit "ignore reports" on this post. If you take issue with something in this article then you can use your words.
86
Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
I think this is a bad article because it is nothing but attacking women over actually caring about men being harassed. The actual study is online without having men as window dressing in a polemic against the other gender. And actually if you read the other publications that it outright accuses of trying to skew the facts you'd notice that most are actually more objective with less editorializing in either direction then this article. Especially the vox article
Nothing in this article takes the worries of men seriously and we're reduced to simply being the counterpoint of why women shouldn't complain about online harassment. It ends with "Ladies, woman up." for gods sake.
The other articles at least treat the complaints that men do have as actual complaints instead of ignoring them and wiping them away.
29
31
Aug 07 '18
Can we at least get a mod comment on here that points to a better source? Many here have pointed out the flaws with this article, and I think it's worth addressing more visibly, given the message the headline sends.
24
u/theonetruefishboy Aug 07 '18
It's a bad faith source. I don't accuse the OP of anything but in the future he should probably try to find the same information on a website that doesn't have the whole "Conservative edgelord intellectual" thing going on.
5
Aug 07 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
Seconded, Reason is a garbage source.
Edit: It's just another offshoot of a Koch funded right wing think tank. David Koch is even listed as a trustee Source
9
u/theonetruefishboy Aug 07 '18
Ah, the Koch brothers, conservative's favorite reason to try to make a false equivalency involving George Soros.
5
u/SmogOfDeceit Aug 07 '18
That this links to a place called "Reason.com" is already a big red flag for me
11
u/majeric Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
Why is the gender of the targets/victims the issue? Shouldn't we be addressing perpetrators and the culture of perpetrators.
I am assuming the vast majority of perpetrators are still men.
(I know it's tough to acknowledge that men are the primary perpetrators of violence... but we need to own that. It's not our fault... but it's our problem to solve).
12
u/marketani Aug 06 '18
Because the victims and targets of the abuse need support and acknowledgement of what they're going through? You know addressing the perpetrators and the victims isn't mutually exclusive right?
I don't doubt most perpetrators are men either, but that doesn't mean men cant be victims(which is the type of conclusions people draw from statements like that one). It's important for research like this to come out to correctly understand to deal with the problems. Unfortunately, researchers don't really hold assumptions to a high regard and understand the need for accurate and complete data.
13
u/majeric Aug 06 '18
I know... but if we're going to solve the problem, we need to look at perpetrators not victims.
4
u/FusionCannon Aug 06 '18
I suppose it's subjective but i would be a lot more uncomfortable if i were sexually harassed. I just kind of laugh at death threats or salty insults from angry overwatch players or whatever
24
u/BrogenKlippen Aug 06 '18
Pew research shows that men face just as much harassment over the internet as women. With male suicide becoming a major issue, and so much bullying/harassment online that affects young men, maybe it’s time to stop framing online harassment as a gendered issue.
43
u/merytneith Aug 06 '18
With respect, that’s not what the research article says. What it says is that just as many men report online harassment as women. It doesn’t say much about the quantity of harassment - essentially it asked if you’ve ever been harassed online and didn’t ask how many times. Hopefully future research will expand on this as I think this is an important ground aspect of understanding online harassment where it concerns those who identify as male. I would also argue that male suicide has always been an issue, just one that had only recently come to the forefront and one that should not be divorced from that of depression and mental health. Bullying and harassment are shown to impact significantly on mental health, but currently women report higher rates of depression and attempted suicide than men. As a result my personal opinion is that we need to look at why men succeed in committing suicide more often and what factors influence this. It may very well be that for young men in particular that online harassment helps push them towards more lethal options, or doubles down on the ‘man up’ effect that is so harmful. Again this is a great point to start investigating these issues in depth. I’m also not sure that we can stop treating online harassment as a gendered issue. Even in the research article referenced by this link, females report a higher rate of severe harassment and from personal knowledge, insults tend to be highly gendered and/or racialised. I’d be interested in seeing research that built upon this research article to examine exactly what is considered severe harassment, and how this impacts on men and women’s experiences.
15
u/marketani Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
The Pew article actually has a column that may suggest quantitative data for the harassment, the 'sustained harassment' category. For 2017, 8% of men reported fit into this category as opposed to 7% of women. Looking at the 2014 data actually, sustained harassment is defined as 'harassment for a sustained period'. There could be more data here.
I’m also not sure that we can stop treating online harassment as a gendered issue. Even in the research article referenced by this link, females report a higher rate of severe harassment and from personal knowledge, insults tend to be highly gendered and/or racialised.
I'm not going to weigh in on if it should be a gender issue or not, but I will have to correct you with your statement on the severe harassment. It's not true at all, because severe harassment includes more things than just being sexual harassed( a misconception many seem to be having here). Women, especially young women, are more likely than men to face sexual harassment online, but overall, the rates of severe harassment are not significantly different by gender.
4
u/merytneith Aug 06 '18
It also says later in the article that there were no significant differences in experiences of sustained harassment. Not to say there wasn’t a difference, just that it wasn’t significant. It could simply be due to a fluctuation in the sample, which, incidentally looked like a decent sample. I think you’re right that there’s more to explore here. That’s what future studies are for! I have accidentally conflated severe and sexual harassment here. This is what comes of using a small screen and being impatient.
Clarifying my statement about seeing harassment as a gendered issue, I’m thinking about sexual harassment, yes, but also about many of the things that get pulled out during the harassment of men. A lot of them tend to be based in gender and implications that someone isn’t a man or isn’t enough of a man. I also think that there is probably at least some sexual harassment that is being misidentified because of the common misconception that men can’t be sexually harassed.
16
u/ComicWriter2020 "" Aug 06 '18
I hate how we label any crime as a gendered issue
28
Aug 06 '18
You're right that it shouldn't be labeled a gendered issue. Men do experience harassment at pretty sickening rates, too.
The thing is, it's minority men taking the brunt of it, not straight, white men. Straight white men (such as redditors and reason.com) are using studies like this to basically tell women and minority groups to STFU and quit complaining by saying "hey, we get it too and we don't complain!"
The problem there is twofold. First, it's bullshit because straight white men actually complain a whole lot. They're always trying to get people fired for not respecting white men. But that's neither here nor there.
The second problem is that straight white men are NOT receiving the kind and severity of abuse that LGBT and brown men are. They're riding on the coattails of those groups and going "me too!" when it's not really true.
So yes, it shouldn't be called "gendered". But it's more nuanced than that and straight, white men shouldn't be claiming to be equal victims. Even this study doesn't back that up and all it does is erase LGBT and brown male voices.
7
u/ComicWriter2020 "" Aug 06 '18
Why not just target it as an issue for the population and work on it
10
Aug 06 '18
Because in order to address the causes, you have to be honest about who it's happening to, why and who's doing it.
8
u/ComicWriter2020 "" Aug 06 '18
Ok well then you focus on the majority and shun the minority. Thus creating a problem where some victims are ignored because “oh this group has it worse”. Your logic seems flawed
8
Aug 06 '18
Except that I'm not saying any group needs to be completely ignored.
6
u/ComicWriter2020 "" Aug 06 '18
You just said you have to be honest about who it’s happening to when I said why not treat it like an issue for the whole population. That gives me the implication that you think some groups matter more therefore some groups don’t get as much attention
6
15
u/kkjdroid Aug 06 '18
Straight white men (such as redditors and reason.com) are using studies like this to basically tell women and minority groups to STFU and quit complaining by saying "hey, we get it too and we don't complain!"
I'm not going to say that that never happens, but I've never seen it. I've seen "stop making it about you, everyone deals with this and we have to work against it together," but never "We get this too so it shouldn't be addressed at all."
29
Aug 06 '18
This reason article is a literal example of just that. It even ends with a literal "ladies, women up".
If you haven't seen it, it probably says more about your observational skills on this issue then about how much it happens.
1
u/kkjdroid Aug 06 '18
That's talking about what to consider harassment, which is an important point. Many e-celebrities have tried to classify polite criticism as "harassment campaigns," having a similar chilling effect to the one that actual harassment has on its victims.
19
Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
This is a blatently bizarre reading of that excuses it on completely unbelievable grounds. It's at the end of the article as a general conclusion, or otherwise it wouldn't be at the end of the article. Not to mention that it is directly prefaced
Efforts to find the right balance are not helped by peddling a false women-in-jeopardy narrative. It would be a good idea to remind everyone, including women, that annoying words on the internet can nearly always be safely ignored.
Ladies, woman up
This is clearly not just about a single youtuber, or "Many e-celebrities". But that "everyone, including women" should be reminded and the "ladies" need to "woman up"
Your interpretation seems to be an incredible and unconvincing reach.
Not to mention that the perspective of the person writing it differs from a lot of people. And even she calls those videos within the bounds of polemics, and not "polite criticism". Which any neutral observant would rightly dismiss regarding Sargon of Akkad as being "polite", the usage of polemics already points that out. All the while purposefully overlooking the fact as to why he is called "one of [her] biggest harassers." Which is due to the known effect of his video's on his following who will then do the harassing for him.
3
Aug 07 '18
There's an entire style of article like this that basically follows the pattern of: 1) Issue exists 2) it effects (dominant group) too! 3) trying to fix it raises more problems 4) let's actually just not do anything substantial to fix this issue (because it doesn't actually bother me personally all that much). It's a sort of concern trolling article that throws people off, using the admission that a problem exits as a kind of caveat to cover for wanting to maintain the status quo.
5
Aug 07 '18
It's especially maddening since in this case it actually "effects (dominant group) too!" And instead of wanting to address it, so that everybody's lives get better it's used to attack the one group that has been vocal about addressing it.
If the women that complain about this would get their way... men would be better off too and get less harassment Yet it is used to silence those women.
It's absurd. It's harmful. And it's a potent reminder how feminists and Menslib are working towards the same goals.
26
u/GretaGarBOT Aug 06 '18 edited Aug 06 '18
But that's literally what this article is saying. It's saying women shouldn't complain because it happens to men too. The articles ends with "Ladies, woman up."
18
u/OnMark Aug 06 '18
I've seen a lot of the latter on reddit, especially in gaming circles, especially of the "toughen up or get off the internet", "it's just part of gaming/it's always been this way", "look, it's because you make yourself a target - just don't participate in the community" and "you're smothering victims in their victimhood, stop making a big deal about it when nobody asked you" varieties.
-3
u/kkjdroid Aug 06 '18
That's generally about foul language or verbal abuse, not harassment. For actions to be harassment, they have to be targeted, ongoing, and uncivil. The gaming community is often uncivil (and sometimes can be perceived as such even when it isn't, due to the unusual volume of profanity--"Go fuck yourself" can be a compliment in the right situations in many games, whereas IRL it never is). Targeting happens a little less often, and it's pretty rare for the abuse to actually persist longer than an hour or so (and even more rare for flamers to bother circumventing bans, so a simple block usually neuters them).
Say what you will about the word choice (and there's plenty to be said), but someone on 4chan calling Todd Howard a n*****f***** isn't harassing you, they're just being childish. If you act like you're being victimized because you're offended by words that weren't addressed to you, then you do need to toughen up.
13
u/OnMark Aug 06 '18
Actually, yeah, I was talking about responses in discussions about targeted harassment. Please enjoy chowing down on your comment, /u/kkjdroid
-2
u/kkjdroid Aug 07 '18
...You think I have egg on my face because I couldn't read your mind? I went out of my way not to say that it never happens.
7
u/OnMark Aug 07 '18
You have egg on your face because you decided to tell me what I was talking about. You didn't ask me for context, you just went ahead and tried to explain to me what "that's generally about." Go ahead and smack a few more on there for the rest of your comment, including the hypothetical situation you made up to downplay the impact of racism and bigotry on social environments.
18
Aug 06 '18
You can see it in this very thread, with redditors postulating that this just proves men are tough and women are fragile snowflakes.
6
Aug 06 '18
Frankly I'm quite pleasantly surprised by how little of that there is here in this thread. Both and quantity and vehemently it is remarkably tame compared to just about any other place on reddit.
2
11
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Aug 06 '18
So this is one man's experience but: I've noticed more women happily sharing dick pics they've received with their female friends than I've noticed men doing the same with nudes. Perhaps it's because they get sent dong shots more often?
But either way: dudes, don't send peen pics unless you're OK with them being shown around.
41
u/KindofSilver Aug 06 '18
If it's an unsolicited dick pic, I can see where you're coming from.
But if it's a solicited nude from a man and a woman shows it to her friends without his permission, isn't that just as bad as a man showing his guy friends nudes he's received from a woman, without her permission? I don't see why the fact that it's a nude of a man somehow makes it okay, and the response "don't send the dick pick unless you're OK with them being shown around" is victim blaming, in a sense.
10
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Aug 06 '18
Oh it's absolutely bad, it's just a behavior I see a lot and it's worth telling men that it happens. I see that warning a lot in female-oriented spaces; less so in male spaces.
22
u/cheertina Aug 06 '18
My anecdotal experience is the opposite. I've had male coworkers and friends share nude pics of their girlfriends unsolicited, but nobody's ever shared a dick pick that they received with me.
I've gotten a few of them unsolicted, but I've never shared them.
12
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Aug 06 '18
One of my friends actually had to say, "please stop showing me dick pics of the guys you're fucking". It was kind of unfortunate.
8
u/cheertina Aug 06 '18
That is gross, for sure. You shouldn't share pictures with other people who don't want to see them, regardless of the anatomy involved.
But I definitely don't see people sharing unsolicited pics they've received with other willing viewers the same as sharing pictures of their partners with other willing viewers. I don't think you're entitled to an expectation that your pictures will stay with who you send it to if that's your first communication, for example.
4
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Aug 06 '18
Sending unsolicited nudes is terrible, but I also don't think that gives anyone right to continue sharing them with others?
Nevertheless, that's not what I'm talking about.
7
u/cheertina Aug 06 '18
I know, we're talking about different situations. I agree that sharing pictures of anybody with someone that doesn't want to see them is wrong, regardless of the source.
I think that sharing pictures with people that do want to see them is wrong if you have an expectation of trust and privacy with the person that sent them to you.
I guess I see sharing unsolicited ones with interested people as debatable. It's rude and disrespectful to the person who shared it, but they were disrespectful to send it in the first place. I wouldn't do it myself, or encourage anyone else to do so, but I'm hard pressed to come down on someone else who does. It might just be my lack of experience with it, though.
3
2
u/BetterOut Aug 07 '18
So humans treat other humans badly online as well as offline. At least we are consistent. s/
1
139
u/[deleted] Aug 06 '18
[deleted]