So the only people who abuse online are men? That's good to know.Don't you think, that if the people who particularly abuse women are banned from using any internet communication services, that there may not be anyone left who abuses men too?
So the only people who abuse online are men? That's good to know.Don't you think, that if the people who particularly abuse women are banned from using any internet communication services, that there may not be anyone left who abuses men too?
Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.
I'll take a look. I will say though, as far as studies go, it is interesting no one has really brought up the pew study, which is actually one of the studies cited.
This statistic here comes from the Pew study:
It is the only statistic they take from it.
It shows clearly that women are far more likely to be stalked or sexually harassed, specifically in that age range, This all makes sense, and it correlates well with real life harassment. In terms of online sexual comments towards women, I see it all the time on 'Live on Playstation'. In terms of sexual harassment this is a legitimate women's issue. If we're focusing on that fair enough.
However in terms of other areas, particularly physical threats, this study does not show this as a uniquely female problem. In fact overall, men are a little more likely to be victims of this sort of harassment.
If we're talking all harassment overall, the percentages are 44% for men, and 37% for women. If I were to take issue, it would be with how this problem is being presented. That's not necessarily to say they are presenting this data incorrectly, I don't know, it's just that, If we're talking about harassment in general, I'm not sure presenting it as solely a women's issue is fair. If it is presented as a sexual harassment issue specifically then it is fair.
In terms of other data, there is the WOAH data. The data here does predominantly show women as the victims to be fair. The problem with this data however, is that the data does not constitute a scientific study. The reason being is that they're self-selected responses from people who have sought out advice from the organisation. So for example, does that mean more women are victims of online harassment in general, or does that mean more women seek out advice from WOAH? We don't know. Despite that, the data is still obviously of some use. However, I was looking through the data and I'm not sure what to make of it. I will give you some reasons why.
2012 was probably the most disproportionate in terms of male and female victimisation. 80% of women sought advice from WOAH in comparison to only 20% of men. I picked that year because of just how overwhelmingly one sided the data is. It is mostly women. This makes some of statistics quite weird though. This is the other reason for using this year.
So 80% of the people that sought advice that year were women. Interestinglg, while 194 of the harassers were men, 123 of them were actually women. It means less women are harassers overall, but that is not an insignificant number. 77 were unknown, Perhaps those 77 were men, The thing is though, this isn't just a one off. it is a statistic that remains consistent throughout all of their data. Generally speaking more men are doing the harassing, but it is never significantly higher. It is only ever like 5-10% higher. I thought that bit of information was interesting.
Another thing to point out is, the majority of cases reported that year, (about 63% of cases) were of people they had some kind of relationship with. The top answer given was an ex-partner. This is another statistic that remains consistent throughout all of their data.
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/2012Statistics.pdf
http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/index.shtml
It seems that for average people women are targeted much more than men are on the internet for online harassment, but in terms of people who are high profile, the real bad shit like swatting seems to be equally horrifying for everyone. I don't think the metaphor really applies.
The big numbers presented here do not have much to do with the extreme cases you cite though. A miniscule amount of "73% of all women" gets harrassed so badly that they feel the need to move (I say feel the need because this of course is always highly individual, not because I want to state that the feeling is wrong). So we have to differentiate between "depth" and "width" of the violence in question. Certainly what is happening to the women and girls who were targeted heavily by anti-feminist videogame players is disgusting, but it's not a problem of masses of women being heavily assaulted. This is a mass movement against particular people, rather than masses of people being the target.I would say posts like these are really harmful to the movement and is one of the key reasons why these two are talking to the UN.
Currently, right now, at this point in time there is nothing comparable to the online harassment women face. Harassment so bad people MOVE to different states. Has any high profile male YouTuber had to forcefully move? Deal with daily harassment just for existing and trying to improve your life?
Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.
Can someone explain to me why piers morgan is so hated on the internet? I havent kept up with that at all.
So the only people who abuse online are men? That's good to know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...future-of-the-web/?postshare=2461443164984121
Yes, they refer to Breitbart at one point but don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the entire article.
Looking forward to the outrage from my favorite Gamer Gate Heroes of the Web.
You're pretty out of touch, she's very political on her Twitter and other writings since HP.
I misinterpreted your post.What? I clearly said people. That post has not been edited. Has the word 'people' taken on a male-only meaning in your mind?
I must say, if Anita gave EA ideas how to improve the control scheme of Mirror's Edge to make it more accessible (because traditional twin stick is definitely not the most comfortable way of playing a platforming-heavy game), I, as a male, would certainly be happy about that.I was exposed to AOS from his video where he talks about the rumour of Anita Sarkeesian getting involved with EA for the development of Mirror's Edge 2 and he bought it hook line and sinker. I say he talked about it, he was mostly calling her the unspeakable and plenty of other obscenities in between encouraging people to sign the online petition to get her involvement out of ME2 which he believed to involve changing the difficulty and control scheme to make it easier for girls (lol). Why he thought an outside feminist critic has more persuasion into the design of a game over a team of developers is beyond me. All this amazingly, a few days after the fact that the rumour of her involvement was debunked by EA themselves. If he can't take the time to google his facts before making a 15 min long rant about the subject then why should I care? Suppose I should have known better than to get a nuanced opinion from someone called AlphaOmegaSin. Typical GG fare to jump the gun before doing any research so not surprised he's a role model to them.
While this is something, I asked, too, it is not a contradiction, as long as you do not rule out psychological violence. Of course, physical violence cannot happen via the internet (disregarding controlling some device via the internet).What exactly constitutes "online violence" in this context? The term sounds contradictory to me.
What exactly constitutes "online violence" in this context? The term sounds contradictory to me.
"Cyber VAWG includes hate speech (publishing a blasphemous libel), hacking (intercepting private communications), identity theft, online stalking (criminal harassment) and uttering threats. It can entail convincing a target to end their lives (counselling suicide or advocating genocide)."
While this is something, I asked, too, it is not a contradiction, as long as you do not rule out psychological violence. Of course, physical violence cannot happen via the internet (disregarding controlling some device via the internet).
Looking forward to the outrage from my favorite Gamer Gate Heroes of the Web.
Thanks. I've always thought of violence as inherently physical, so even the term "psychological violence" seems wrong to me. I was under the impression that if it was not physical, it wasn't violence, and whatever you'd call "psychological violence" has some other, more appropriate term.
Guess I'm just behind the times, linguistically.
So online stalking is indeed limited to criminal harassment and does not include people "stalking" social network profiles and collecting info via search machines? In that case, 73% seems hard to believe and disastrous. Though on the other hand I don't think that a drastic reduction in freedom rights is the right reaction to that."Cyber VAWG includes hate speech (publishing a blasphemous libel), hacking (intercepting private communications), identity theft, online stalking (criminal harassment) and uttering threats. It can entail convincing a target to end their lives (counselling suicide or advocating genocide)."
I must say, if Anita gave EA ideas how to improve the control scheme of Mirror's Edge to make it more accessible (because traditional twin stick is definitely not the most comfortable way of playing a platforming-heavy game), I, as a male, would certainly be happy about that.
non-physical abuse has a lot of the same psychological aftereffects of physical violence
I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that I think using the word "violence" in this context is misleading.
I think it would speak volumes for how far DICE has fallen if they have to take design tips from a YouTube personality and internet activist who's mark in the industry has nothing to do with critiquing game design, mechanics, or controls.
Looking forward to the outrage from my favorite Gamer Gate Heroes of the Web.
Yes, but DICE seems to really be fixated on shooter controls, unwilling to adapt to the different genre, at least judging by the first Mirror's Edge.
I think it would speak volumes for how far DICE has fallen if they have to take design tips from a YouTube personality and internet activist who's mark in the industry has nothing to do with critiquing game design, mechanics, or controls.
I never had issues with the first games controls. I'm not sure what control scheme you'd even replace it with. A first person game has first person controls, makes sense to me unless you want it to go in the AssCreed direction, which in my opinion would be the equivalent of a built-in aim hack for an FPS.
Judging a game company based on what never did or will happen is weird.
Metroid Prime, for instance, is a first person game, too, but for platforming, the controls seem way more practical (if you replace the visor changing functionality of the C-Stick with looking around).
EDIT @oversted: You see that "would" in there?
I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that I think using the word "violence" in this context is misleading.
Metroid Prime, for instance, is a first person game, too, but for platforming, the controls seem way more practical (if you replace the visor changing functionality of the C-Stick with looking around).
EDIT @oversted: You see that "would" in there?
Metroid Prime, for instance, is a first person game, too, but for platforming, the controls seem way more practical (if you replace the visor changing functionality of the C-Stick with looking around).
EDIT @oversted: You see that "would" in there?
We know bud. Someone gave their opinion on the situation as if it happened and I replied. It's all in good fun.
Imagine Super Mario 64-like controls for movement using just one stick. It frees the right hand, it is less complicated and basically its only disadvantage - if you are not playing a shooter, where the right stick is constantly needed to aim with your weapon - is that you lose strafing, which is a mostly useless move in platformers anyway. By the way, you should really play the Prime games if you haven't yet, at least if you like exploration.I still need to play the Prime games. What exactly makes it more practical?
I'm glad to see that larger organizations are finally taking a stand against online harassment. Look at this filth, it's disgusting:
I'm glad to see that larger organizations are finally taking a stand against online harassment. Look at this filth, it's disgusting:
If this was what we were talking with online harassment, then I can't imagine many people using the internet regularly have never been harassed. At the same time it marginalizes real harassment to put it on one level with such banter.
I'm glad to see that larger organizations are finally taking a stand against online harassment. Look at this filth, it's disgusting:
Anita used "You suck" as an example of online harassment at her talk at the UN, is that inherently worse that "set yourself on fire"?
I'm not trying to marginalize harassment, I think there is harassment out there that is obviously harassment and obviously repugnant, but I think when it comes to the less "obvious" cases like above, it's still important that even these smaller examples of hateful speech are harmful.
He dropped the skulls?davis aurini has update his look
he's not going for super villain anymore
now he's some kind of mra cowboy
I can tell you why he's hated in England.
Ran fake stories whilst editor for a well established newspaper, The Mirror, about british soldiers torturing Iraqis.
Then her example is shit, everyone should be able to cope with a simple "you suck". Considering what I've been hearing here, what people worte to her and the depression quest maker, "you suck", even daily by 10.000 people is irrelevant. It certainly is not violence from my perspective, it's just rash and bad mannered.
I'm glad to see that larger organizations are finally taking a stand against online harassment. Look at this filth, it's disgusting: