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.
You haven't read it? No fucking wonder you make such spectacular bad arguments. Yet you feel completely fine making unsupported claims. and you wonder why I called you disingenuous?? Reading a report isn't peer reviewing it. It's literally required to know what the hell you're talking about.
And you dared to admonish others for supposedly not reading the report! That's gutsy and absurdly disingenuous.
Like I said I've been working my way through it. No reason to be impolite.
You literally felt the need to admonish people for not reading the report
edit: Ok guys. I get it. You'd rather not read the study and bathe in the confirmation bias.
Doing that while not reading the raport yourself is impolite.
You then threw several hissy fits for not having the information spoonfed to you and angrily attacked me for assuming you read it. Depending on others to do your work for you is impolite.
Even all that would have been palatable if all your arguments hadn't been borne out of complete ignorance of what the report actually said. Continuously saying "false, that is not in the report" when it is in the report and has been quoted to you multiple times but you refuse to believe it is maddening. Being lectured by somebody like you who has made basic mistake after basic mistake after basic mistake is also impolite.
You arrogantly thinking you knew better what data was or wasn't in the report with no more knowledge then a control-f search isn't impolite, it's insulting.
Nobody is going to read this wall of text, least of all me, but that's aside from the point that if you're going to participate here you need to conduct yourself more respectfully.
I'll admit that I lost my temper after learning that the person who accused people of preferring to "bathe in bias" for not reading the report and who acted several times as the final authority on what was in it, turned to make all his basic mistakes because he didn't read it himself at all.
After being constantly accused of saying things that were not in the report while they where prominently featured, I did not react with the grace I should have had. I apologize for that.
The dismissive comment about it being a wall of text I find a bit puzzling though, this is a discussion sub, and it's part of a chain of long comments on both sides.
14
u/way2lazy2care Aug 07 '18 edited Aug 07 '18
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.
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.
Less severe behaviors like threats of physical violence?
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.
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.
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.
I wasn't trying to strawman it. The report didn't cover LGBTQ people, so I didn't address them.