Lord British
Member
It's more likely to entrench the view they hold even further and cause them to push back in some way.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn are speaking at the UN about online harassment
- Thread starter crimsonheadGCN
- Start date
- Status
It's more likely to entrench the view they hold even further and cause them to push back in some way.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Funny thing is, we can talk about all kinds of things the UN can be doing with its time. It's choosing to spend time with two women who have done extensive work investigating, and being victims of, online harassment, something that has cost women careers and threatened their very lives. It's pretty damn important to them and apparently, to the UN.
And you don't want it to happen. A conversation.
Because Syria.
RIGHT
it's actually really obviously pointing out that those 'instead of focusing on ending harassment for women, we should be ending harassment for EVERYONE!' arguments are bullshit
Quadraphonic
Member
Saying "All lives matter" is a noble idea at the first outlook because it's obvious. But it ignores the problem of systemic racism by trying to take away attention from a specific problem and apply that same effort equally to everything.
Like saying "all diseases matter" at a diabetic race-for-the-cure marathon. Or "all limbs matter" when your arm is gangrenous and swollen.
It's very callous and ignorant. And in this case, "all houses matter" means equal attention needs to be given to all houses, not just the troubled ones.
Shake Appeal
Member
That of course all lives matter, but that it is at best willfully neglectful not to direct our resources and efforts where there is the most need and where they will do the most good.
DeadDuck144
Member
"They can handle multiple issues at once, but nothing about sexism in the United States.
Hi, I'm a Neogaf user, and let me explain how I know more about what the UN should be dealing with than the UN does."
Se_7_eN
Member
I am confused... What could possibly be done about online harassment?
Someone types some negative comments about you, or says something hurtful and they get their internet privileges revoked for a day?
We start adding filters to the reply box? No cursing or saying mean words after typing "You"?
I just don't see where this could really go.
Someone types some negative comments about you, or says something hurtful and they get their internet privileges revoked for a day?
We start adding filters to the reply box? No cursing or saying mean words after typing "You"?
I just don't see where this could really go.
D
Deleted member 20920
Unconfirmed Member
Chû Totoro;179837476 said:
No one is putting online sexual harassment as a priority over those issues. I'm pretty sure there are more than enough room to be discussing all these problems at the same time.
No one is saying that it shouldn't be equal when people want to focus on women's issues on the internet. It's just that different situations calls for different discussions and solution and it doesn't benefit anyone to go "but what about them!" when we try to discuss things or nothing gets done.
What would you feel if you were truing to address your specific issue at a work place and then 10 other people just starts screaming "what about me!"? And then the meeting becomes about solving every issue and nothing gets done. It's not a zero sum game.
If you honestly care so much about other bigger issues then go start a discussion yourself somewhere else. The OT is a good place to discuss many issues. Don't downplay people's problems by bringing up equality or by saying there are worse problems to solve. It's silly.
Better legislation and laws could be one. And better enforcement. Someone who makes a threat or harass someone online should face the same punishment as they would in real life. Have cops not laugh it off when you make a report about being threaten. Have laws that can make companies like Twitter surrender user information in such cases during investigation. Have a set of bare minimum standards for companies like facebook and twitter when it comes to harassment. If twitter is unwilling to deal and moderate their users strictly, then they shouldn't be allowed to operate or be fined. If we can have fire safety laws I don't see why social media companies shouldn't be subjected to some kind of minimum standards to protect their users. These are huge companies who can and should do more.
This has actually come out of my current graduate class in Human Rights, where we're looking closely at the legal environment surrounding them. A lot of the basis comes from the UN, and while it's acknowledged that the UN's enforcement powers are minimal, they still send a strong PR message when they consider an issue that helps set the international dialogue in a certain direction, which then puts unconscious or overt pressure on the dialogue about an issue within each country.
Correct - but to clarify not just Syria only, but that is indeed among the world's highest priorities in September 2015. If talking about this took away just one half of one percent of time spent trying to solve the world's actual problems then it was a waste of time.
At the UN. Talk about it elsewhere, my all means. (<-I also said this statement earlier to the fallacy poster guy...)
Its okay, its hard to see who is posting stuff out of bad will but when you are posting shit like " 1st world troubles" you can confidently say the intent its pretty clear.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Tell that to DSP.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Well, the first step in figuring that out is to actually let people talk about it in a public forum. What's the worst that could happen from a conversation?
The #Alllivesmatter hashtag get's shitted on because it presumes that the prevelance and rate of certain violent crimes is equal along racial lines.
Shake Appeal
Member
I think you're mistaking "online harassment" for "someone saying mean words on the Internet." It's a common mistake.
We're talking more about the "threatening bodily harm and rape against you and your loved ones," "plastering your private information online for all to see," "sending SWAT teams to your house," and "making your life a living hell" kind of harassment.
You know, the twisted, illegal stuff that is rampant.
Felix Lighter
Member
The same thing that is done when dealing with other types of harassment. Make sure laws are in place and make sure the authorities have the knowledge and tools available to enforce the laws. Punishment probably would not be internet privileges revoked for a day.
I realize my comment is probably going to be semantic compared to the scope of this conversation, but it bugged me and felt I should clarify. Just because the opposite of a hypothesis is false, it does not make the hypothesis false. Those people on Facebook are probably already dickwads if that is their normal disposition. Adding anonymity to them might not make them worse, or they could possibly become the type who issue the most extreme epithets when anonymous. But that does not mean those with "normal" profiles do not espouse vitriol when their identities are concealed.
weemadarthur
Member
What/who is that? And how is it relevant as a discussion point?
markwaters
Neo Member
In order to stop online harassment, you change the culture the facilitates and accepts it as some sort of social tax for being on the internet. You do so by speaking about it to large, diverse audiences -- like the UN.
Tye The Czar
Member
Glorious. Glorious.
This is the fruit of GamerGate's labors: Threatening them so hard that their victims went to the freaking UN. If this isn't a sign of their incompetence of trying to take out their targets, I don't know what is.
This is the fruit of GamerGate's labors: Threatening them so hard that their victims went to the freaking UN. If this isn't a sign of their incompetence of trying to take out their targets, I don't know what is.
Gentleman Jack
Member
You're seriously suggesting that the UN has the power to solve Syria's problems.
Here's their schedule, oh no, look at all the time they're not spending fixing Syria! Lawdy what are we ever to do about that dang Anita Sarkeesian and the trouble she's caused?
With network communication as powerful as it is today, I feel like presentations like this are super important at the world governance level. As loaded as I'm sure it ends up being, these are great selections for people to address the topic. World leaders and lawmakers hearing about these situations from people who live them is necessary to get as wide a perspective as people in those roles need. I don't even think individual laws should necessarily result, but taking into account the context of this harassment in other decision-making should be a positive.
And yes, it does need to be specifically about women. In many ways, I think that makes it even more pertinent for a UN audience. The scope of the mistreatment can vary drastically, but women tend to be institutionally targeted for harassment/abuse. So generally where there's social instability/conflict, women are facing the undue brunt.
And yes, it does need to be specifically about women. In many ways, I think that makes it even more pertinent for a UN audience. The scope of the mistreatment can vary drastically, but women tend to be institutionally targeted for harassment/abuse. So generally where there's social instability/conflict, women are facing the undue brunt.
shaowebb
Member
Sounds like my in laws...no I'm not joking either.
Interfectum
Member
"Why is there a black entertainment television channel but not white entertainment television channel?"
"Gay pride march? Where's hetero pride march?? Or human pride march?"
I mean, if it were feasible to end it for everyone that would be better, no? It sucks that some people bring up that sentiment as a way to deflate or distract from a more targeted approach, but I find it hard to believe that there are reasonable people that are opposed to trying to make it better for everyone.
I guess I just find it disheartening that the default assumption when someone brings that up is that they're being some kind of distracting troll. Harassment is harassment, and even if we ended 99% of harassment against women it would still suck pretty much just as much for the 1% of women that were still dealing with it. For each individual person suffering it doesn't really matter how much their group is suffering on the whole*, so it's frustrating to brush aside concerns because Group A is numerically dealing with something more than Group B.
I don't even understand what the advantage is in focusing on a specific group. Like, honestly, 100%, not trolling, that is where I'm coming from. What is the advantage to focusing specifically on one gender's issues rather than addressing online harassment on the whole? I know that GG is specifically targeted towards women, but is there some way to utilize that to actually try to fix the problem? Like, will the solutions to stamp out harassment rely on that information?
If the solution is something like a looooong campaign to get people to stop being sexist and see that they're being shitty, then I get it, I understand, since the majority of it right now is coming from that sort of place. But if the solution is legal, rather than societal/cultural, and is something like "we should criminalize really terrible instances of online harassment" then I don't see why the gender distinction matters in discussing the issues people are facing online.
*Note, I do get that this does matter in some ways, for instance: less girls are likely to get into video game development because they see that there is an increased likelihood right now for them to be dealing with harassment. But, on the whole, if you are being harassed, it's kind of inconsequential how many other people in your kind-of-person category are also being harassed. It sucks all the same.
aspiegamer
Member
If there's any legacy of #Gamergate it should be the world actually starting to pay more attention to the kind of crap #Gamergate pulled. Good. Some of the highest profile victims have been on TV to discuss the issue, sparked massive diversity campaigns in the tech industry, gone to Congress and now get to go the UN! Great work, jackasses! I'm almost not kidding! Take the hint that "there's an international audience to address the things we did to these women" means you were probably in the wrong here. That's the same tier of ignorance that climate deniers and people that support mass deportation are awarded.
No, bullying and sexual harassment are not first world problems. They're everyone's problem. To say it's not a collective problem is downright ignorant and a pretty firm indicator that you're lucky enough to have not suffered these things yourself. You do know that as rational humans we're able to discuss more than one thing at a time, right?
It's like you don't read anything. How many times can I possibly say there are rooms for multiple issues?
Your own list shows that Anita Sarkeesian's point was the most irrelevent of them all. Or do you actually disagree?
I'd love to hear your own tier list of issues there - especially if online harassment is not the lowest for you. I won't give you my own ranking as I said earlier I don't have an overall metric for you on importance but I can recognize when "one of these things is not like the others".
I don't like your purposeful omission of "online".
Gentleman Jack
Member
The motives behind 'what about [insert majority group here]' has nothing to do with making things better for everyone, but to change the subject and shut down discussion. The comic says 'look at that house that's on fire, clearly an imminent problem that requires remedy' and lampoons the idea that those who change the subject are actually trying to contribute to a solution.
There's a reason I posted the schedule. The presentation overlaps several others happening on the same day, in a different conference room. Anita and Zoe are not addressing the General Assembly. Attendance is completely voluntary. 30 seconds of reading on your own would have uncovered that. So the bullshit you keep spouting that this is somehow taking away from important things that the UN should, or even wants to do is baseless. There is nothing being sacrificed at the UN so that Anita and Zoe can present their point of view.
aspiegamer
Member
There is no functional difference.
At least someone here has their priorities in order.
Good,I hope this will push for a federal cyber bully law.
I swear with each passing minute, China is right that too much freedom is just chaos. We need to remove online privacy for social media account, add in SSN for account registration and cellphone activation code to verify user.
This will allow the NSA and FBI to collect keyword and threat faster and verify information also.
I swear with each passing minute, China is right that too much freedom is just chaos. We need to remove online privacy for social media account, add in SSN for account registration and cellphone activation code to verify user.
This will allow the NSA and FBI to collect keyword and threat faster and verify information also.
Tye The Czar
Member
Is there a term for this sort of logical fallacy?
willfully dense
Tye The Czar
Member
Please keep your strawmanning to zero here.
I hate online harassment, too, but I don't think giving government such control over the internet is the answer. Shit sounds scary to be frank. Far too easy for abuse.
Ignore them, he is strawmanning the people wanting the crack down on harassment with patriot act, NSA scare tactic bullshit.
'You want to do something about harassment?, time for big brother!!!!!!!'
This is a matter of disagreeing that's too fundamental here. To me it doesn't matter which room it was held in. Even if nations designated people specifically to go to that conference only it was still a waste in my opinion because they could have allocated them elsewhere at the UN. Your point is noted, but I really just see it much further down the world's totem pole than you and thus I feel it has no place at the UN currently. I think our two stances are clear at this point.
Talk is about to begin any minute.
Edit: Doesn't seem to be the panel with Anita Sarkeesian tho. I'm confused, did the panel happen already?
Edit: Doesn't seem to be the panel with Anita Sarkeesian tho. I'm confused, did the panel happen already?
BUNTING1243
Banned
I love the follow-up tweet from Google.
I propose a new solution, forced anonymity. this trolling stuff has only recently reached critical mass and partly to blame is social media sites, before people tied their identity to their online activities trolling was a lot less potent. please like and subscribe.
aspiegamer
Member
"I personally don't think it's a big deal so they shouldn't spend any time on it, despite having no evidence that anything I feel is more important is being skipped as a result."
Got it.
hey! that's not what he said! cheeky.
More attention is necessary and its great they are getting a platform for the issue. It's a shame they have to because of the harassment they have received and people have to be a-holes. I just really don't feel the government nor the UN is in a position to really handle anything internet related though. I think the steps a government would take, especially U.S., to handle things online harassment, bullying, threats, etc would ultimately be too controlling and met with huge backlash. It's a conundrum that people enjoy their freedoms on the internet but at the same time as wanting privacy, freedom and anonymity you will lose protection because unfortunately those freedoms allow a-holes free reign. People are going to have to decide how much freedom and privacy on the internet they are willing to give up for protection. When you present a problem to governments they are also looking for people to provide solutions at the same time so the message should be clear.
It's not a strawman, its just something people don't want to talk about because once you start talking about real, reasonable, working solutions that is exactly where you are headed. People need to become accepting of this or its just going to end up being a bunch of people shouting "Hey there is a problem here!" but voting down any solutions and then people just throwing up their hands and saying screw it we don't care anymore.
It's not a strawman, its just something people don't want to talk about because once you start talking about real, reasonable, working solutions that is exactly where you are headed. People need to become accepting of this or its just going to end up being a bunch of people shouting "Hey there is a problem here!" but voting down any solutions and then people just throwing up their hands and saying screw it we don't care anymore.
when there are real-life ramifications for it, why does differentiation even matter?
you can tell who never gets into political discussions in the OT and who only opens their mouths when it relates to vidya.
Linkstrikesback
Member
I mean... the United Nations obviously disagrees, so...
Vigilant Gambit
Member
The UN web tv stream link doesn't work for me. Is it just blocked by my job somehow? Or has it not started yet? I don't see it on the live stream schedule on that page, either.
What is a solution then? Just one, a workable, reasonable solution to the problem that doesn't involve government control?
People either need to become accepting of the idea of governments gaining some control over the internet to try and combat such things as harassment, threats, etc and stop treating it like a boogeyman or provide a valid other solution to the problem.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked