CUD Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Sorry, mate, but I'll have to disagree with you on that. With We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? It seems she's suggesting this (to quote wikipedia) Cyberbullying is an action of harming or harassing via information technology networks in a repeated and deliberate manner. According to U.S. Legal Definitions, "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them". There is no problem with a video that criticises someone. There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending hate tweets ... even if they are tweets to a person you disagree with. Let's look at that definition of cyber bullying again: "cyber-bullying could be limited to posting rumors or gossips about a person in the internet bringing about hatred in other’s minds; or it may go to the extent of personally identifying victims and publishing materials severely defaming and humiliating them" The 'bringing about hatred in other's minds' part is in regards to posting rumors and gossips which videos that criticise the comments and arguments of a public figure would not be covered under. She's not just referring to cyber bullying and she cannot be referring to that as a public figure she cannot expect people to only compliment her. Here's a tweet of her's where she points out a few people that make videos criticising her actions, videos that have gotten a lot of support. These YouTubers consist of Thunderf00t, MrRepzion, AlphaOmegaSin and the last guy might be TotalBiscuit/CynicalBrit but I'm not certain. By tweeting with a picture of these YouTubers who have not once encouraged their fans to send hate to Anita she is blaming them for criticising her arguments. Considering her recent talks at the UN, she wants these people to not be able to critique her at all. She wants to be able to spread her narrative without opposition, especially not by these YouTuber's with hundreds of thousands of subscribers and overwhelmingly positively rated videos. Point being, there is a lot of support for these people that oppose Anita so what's her plan to counter it? Label all criticism of her as harassment and cyber bullying/cyber violence of course! Make these people appear to be evil misogynistic harassers like all of GamerGate, right? She's a public figure, she can't spread her message and expect everyone to love her, she'd be an idiot to believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 CUD, you conveniently don't adress the issue There is no problem with a video that criticises someone. There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending hate tweets. Members of the U.N. hear what she says, not what (you think) she means. So you can aruge all you want what you think she said ... it's irrelevant.In your U.N. quote I've seen her talk about the bottom one. If you say she was talking to the U.N. about the top one, you'll actually need to give a quote of her were she does ... edit: because, do note that the same thing applies to her. if her video's of criticising people cause a flood of hate tweets at the so called anti-femenists - then her videos are also a problem. By her argument to the U.N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Teeny Tiny Cat Posted October 27, 2015 Administrators Share Posted October 27, 2015 @CUD I have no interest in going and watching either her videos or the videos of the people you reference who oppose her, so I'm just gonna disengage here because I can't properly discuss this without knowing what I'm talking about and frankly I have better things to do than research this. As far as I can tell, those people aren't getting censored if it would even be possible for me to go watch their videos, so not sure what the problem is here exactly. No-one's stopping them from having a different opinion to hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 In your U.N. quote I've seen her talk about the bottom one. If you say she was talking to the U.N. about the top one, you'll actually need to give a quote of her were she does ..." Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure which quotes you're referring to? Members of the U.N. hear what she says, not what (you think) she means. So you can aruge all you want what you think she said ... it's irrelevant. We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? Yes and what they do with what she said is up to their interpretation of it. If they want to push for censorship of anyone that criticises her on YouTube then they will because she's implying that those such people are causing others to harass her. edit: because, do note that the same thing applies to her. if her video's of criticising people cause a flood of hate tweets at the so called anti-femenists - then her videos are also a problem. By her argument to the U.N. She's free to criticise just like people should be free to criticise what she says, as a public figure she cannot expect only good messages. You are right that by her logic she should also be liable for any hateful messages sent to game developers of games she criticises but the way it was framed by the UN was as a women's issue and not a people's issue. http://www.unwomen.org/~/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2015/cyber_violence_gender%20report.pdf?v=1&d=20150924T154259 The report however was discredited by its horrible sources, I think even the UN apologised about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Can you explain what you mean? I'm not sure which quotes you're referring to? sure. When she tells the U.N. We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? Then she's not saying There is is a problem when a video that criticises me. She's not even saying there's a problem with a video that defames her. She's saying There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending me hate tweets.You are the one who claims she means criticises - but there's no reason why the people of the U.N. would interprete her words like that, as she doesn't say that. In fact, she talks about defamation - which is already against the law in most (if not all) countries* ... Even if you're defaming a public figure. So, you'll have a very hard time trying to argue that defamation is considered the same as criticizing... *: of the 196 countries in the world, I don't know about Kosovo or Vatican city, but in Taiwan & the 193 U.N. members, it is edit: double checked: defamation/slander is against the law in ALL countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUD Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 sure. When she tells the U.N. We need to broaden the definition of online harassment and abuse. For example, someone will post a YouTube video that defames me, and then thousands of people will reply to that video and tweet at me “You liar†or “You dumb bitch.†That’s not a threat, but it’s still thousands of people coming after me, right? Then she's not saying There is is a problem when a video that criticises me. She's not even saying there's a problem with a video that defames her. She's saying There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending me hate tweets.You are the one who claims she means criticises - but there's no reason why the people of the U.N. would interprete her words like that, as she doesn't say that. In fact, she talks about defamation - which is already against the law in most (if not all) countries* ... Even if you're defaming a public figure. So, you'll have a very hard time trying to argue that defamation is considered the same as criticizing... *: of the 196 countries in the world, I don't know about Kosovo or Vatican city, but in Taiwan & the 193 U.N. members, it is edit: double checked: defamation/slander is against the law in ALL countries. She lists YouTubers in the tweet that I linked that criticise her arguments, not any that defame her. She does believe that these people are defaming her and sending hate mobs her way when all they're doing is criticising her as they rightly should. Are we talking only about what she said at the UN or what she really intends? Even if what she said is just: There is a problem when a video causes people to start sending me hate tweets. What is the solution to this when the videos out there aren't telling people to send her hate tweets? The solution that she wants is censorship of people that lead to these hate tweets even if they do no directly encourage the tweets. These people aren't defaming her, she only believes they are. If we are to assume the UN just took her speech and didn't discuss things with her further then maybe you're right, maybe they weren't bothered to actually research her or the sources they used for their report on 'cyber violence' against women (which they clearly didn't until it was pointed out how poor the report was). The thing is that Anita and people like her want censorship, if certain people get into power then we may see that in the future but thankfully they have a large enough opposition that I can't see it causing too much of an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnie Azoff Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Honestly if someone makes an incredibly nonsensical video like almost any video tumblr feminists like Anita have made, someone criticizes it, and people become angry at whoever made the inaccurate video, is that really such an unexpected response? There are a few facts you have to consider. First, feminists like Anita are infamous for making very little sense in many of their videos, and either over-exaggerating without proof or simply making things up to try to help prove their point(s). Second, most feminists like the ones criticized on twitter seem to share this intolerance for anything that could persuade rational people to believe them. If questioned, they may cite the 'horrible patriarchy' present in America and other nations as to why they can't possibly be bothered to come up with a logical response, or even resort to dismissing someone as unimportant because they're not female, gay, or trans. Third, these kind of feminists have a very large following- trying to ignore them would fall somewhere between unrealistic and impractical especially since they insist on being so vocal. So you end up with a large and loud group of people who don't preach or listen to reason, and like to think that no one not part of an 'oppressed' minority matters at all. So is anger really such an unexpected or even unjustified way for people to react? A lot of you seem to think that a youtuber just questions a tumblr feminist and all their fans go insult her on twitter for a laugh. There's a lot more to it than that that you're managing to overlook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 She lists YouTubers in the tweet Why are you talking about a tweet of heres when I'm talking about what you said she said to the people of the U.N. ? What is the solution to this when the videos out there aren't telling people to send her hate tweets?That's for the people who create the law to decide. hmmm ... how about the same principles of defarmation of characterin the existing laws? they can be sued and a judge can decide if they are cyber bullying or not? If you're right, and they aren't cyber bullying, then they got nothing to fear. If you're wrong, and they are bullying, then they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cąℓσceđrus ☁☽ Posted November 23, 2015 Author Share Posted November 23, 2015 ~"freedom of speech unless it is something i disagree with, then it shall be silenced" why are we calling this free speech again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.