tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post2018470912709173378..comments2024-03-27T09:14:27.496+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: A Sociology of Sexist TrollingPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-86474880411745664432016-04-17T22:23:27.291+01:002016-04-17T22:23:27.291+01:00Curious intersectional aside: four of the eight wo...Curious intersectional aside: four of the eight women were women of colour, which meant that six of the ten were PoC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-34878500698658536322016-04-15T18:00:25.156+01:002016-04-15T18:00:25.156+01:00Offguardian has a few things to say about this
ht...Offguardian has a few things to say about this<br /><br />https://off-guardian.org/2016/04/15/guardians-statistics-on-the-dark-side-are-pure-farce/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-28131506240439103922016-04-14T20:00:53.098+01:002016-04-14T20:00:53.098+01:00Yes, it is. I don't think I've ever seen a...Yes, it is. I don't think I've ever seen anything described as "trolling" that wasn't 100% justified.<br /><br />It is the people's weapon against the elite, whether the Tory section of the elite or their Guardianista allies.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-37953204072798205412016-04-14T16:58:47.616+01:002016-04-14T16:58:47.616+01:00"Someone's unfamiliar with the concept of..."Someone's unfamiliar with the concept of keywords."<br /><br />This is how I thought they would have done it, which pretty much dismisses the whole exercise and it's findings doesn't it? Who knows what context the keyword was used in? How can it be determined if the keyword is abusive? They could at least give us the list of keywords - what was left in and what was left put and who decided what the keywords are?<br /><br />Couple of examples:<br /><br />"Women belong in the kitchen, not writing in newspaper columns" - this is undoubtedly sexist trolling but where is the keyword?<br /><br />"You do not know what you are fucking talking about" - This is not abuse if it happens to be true and is probably not abuse in any case. Fuck is a perfectly reasonable verb/adjective and the decency police have no right to eliminate this most iconic of words from the English language.<br /><br />Chris picked up on another context - the nature of the article in question. What if the Guardian are deliberately encouraging articles by women to be written in a way that courts abuse, in order that the Guardian can then raise the issue of sexist trolling? A clever way for special interests to push those interests.<br /><br />The truth is that a responsible and reasonable study in abuse cannot look for keywords, let alone a scientific one. Simple as that.<br /><br />I actually got my math wrong first time round, it would probably take 10 years for 100 people to analyse 70m comments. Until the Guardian commits those resources to the project we should laugh in their faces. <br /><br />The liberal decents are always quoting enlightenment and scientific values, for example when they attack backward religions in order to justify mass slaughter or something. And then these defenders of science come up with anti scientific bullshit like this. Back in your face decents!<br /><br />Any article using this anti scientific source brings disrepute upon itself.<br />BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-28812630569800789612016-04-13T19:48:38.735+01:002016-04-13T19:48:38.735+01:00But that is totally not what we're talking abo...But that is totally not what we're talking about, is it?Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-8330181700425905552016-04-13T19:30:10.099+01:002016-04-13T19:30:10.099+01:00I dare say some working class guys do see a rich G...I dare say some working class guys do see a rich Guardianista feminist being paid more money than they'll ever see to write attacks on men and maybe respond in a sharp-tongued fashion. Is that justified? I'd have to say yes.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-41440185404816458182016-04-13T18:49:06.476+01:002016-04-13T18:49:06.476+01:00Someone's unfamiliar with the concept of keywo...Someone's unfamiliar with the concept of keywords.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-20479729288783160012016-04-13T17:47:45.713+01:002016-04-13T17:47:45.713+01:00"In a study of the 70m comments made on its s..."In a study of the 70m comments made on its site since 2006, The Graun has found that of the ten most abused writers, eight are women and the remaining two men are black."<br /><br />Someone has trawled through 70m comments? Doing the math this would take 100 staff of people roughly more than a year to gather and interpret the data?<br /><br />Overall this article is bullshit from beginning to end. BCFGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-75586883659286310122016-04-13T09:47:11.911+01:002016-04-13T09:47:11.911+01:00I have, weirdly enough, been bullied on Twitter by...I have, weirdly enough, been bullied on Twitter by feminists, after I wrote something fatuous in a grumpy moment. Mockery, jokes at my expense, imaginary threats of violence... they were having a fine old time, and getting plenty of RTs. I felt harassed, I felt ashamed and more than anything I felt trapped - <i>perhaps if I explain it <b>this</b> way... no, then they'd just say <b>that</b>...</i> I don't want to make a big deal of it - it was only a few people and only cost me a few hours out of one evening; Laurie Penny probably has to deal with worse every time she logs on. But it was bullying, in its small way. They're nice people, too, who I agree with most of the time (otherwise I wouldn't have replied to one of them in the first place). God knows what they think when they see my name coming up now, given that it's <b>not</b> generally attached to statements of headbanging sexist ignorance. (Which isn't how I'd characterise the tweet that caused the problem, either, but I can see how you might. Grumpy, in haste, 140 characters. Don't drive angry!)<br /><br />So: the analysis in your post is all good, but I think there are broader (and non-gender-specific!) effects of the medium itself - something about the way it lets you talk to <b>anyone</b>, including people whose beliefs are the diametric opposite of yours. And, in particular, the way it lets you talk <b>at</b> anyone, and get validation not from the person you're supposedly addressing but from other people who think like you.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009879034507926661noreply@blogger.com