Threat of the Day

82 thoughts on Threat of the Day

1. And once again I kneel down and give thanks for a small readership. I think the worst comment I ever got on my blog was being called ‘close-minded.’

2. You know, there was a time in my life when I was jealous of all the successful, popular bloggers. Now I’m just grateful I don’t have to deal with this shit.

3. I admit that I’ve gotten off easy, comments wise. My personal blog shows the picture of a woman as the avatar, which I deliberately set as my own feminist statement. However, even though it sometimes confuses people, most people still seem to figure out that I am a man.

   Most trollish comments I have received have been juvenile. Some have been competitive. Back when I was new to Daily Kos (where I cross-post most of my stuff), I dealt every day with two trolls were convinced I was actively plagiarizing. They got scared away with time. If anyone has ever had an issue with me, they’ve usually been devious more than scary.

   Oddly enough, I had a particularly persistent troll a couple months back who I assumed was a man. Maybe that was my own prejudice, but I eventually realized the writer was female. Still, that’s been the exception, rather than the rule. I sometimes wonder if what motivates trolls is jealousy. And by this I don’t mean the quality of the writing, but a man who feels desire for a woman he cannot have.

4. So many stupid people in the world, and yet there seems to be a concentration of them on the internet. It’s a shame you have to deal with that Jill – it’s the worst kind of nonsense. I can only compare it to living in NY post 9/11 or growing up in Washington DC during the cold war 70’s and 80’s. There was always a sense that you lived with a target on your back. I imagine that many women must feel this way, only in a more personal sense. A silver lining, if there is any, is that you must be saying the right things to provoke such reactions. Keep fighting the good fight, we’ve got your back.

5. I have definitely seen comments on the less-moderated interwebz suggesting that male bloggers, writers, video makers, etc. be raped. It is definitely not just a feminist or female blogger thing… people are pretty much obsessed with all kinds of rape, for all kinds of illogical causes.

6. I’m very sorry you have to see these things, Jill. Of course no one deserves to receive threats/sort of not threats but really threats like this, but hopefully saying “You don’t deserve this” still means something.

7. Those emails would be hilarious if they weren’t so disturbing. I mean, I can just imagine the kind of sorry-ass guy who would write such things, and it’s hard not to laugh. Even so, it’s horrible that this is even a thing that happens.

   That said, I run an explicitly feminist blog that often talks about sports, and as a result, I often wonder when I’m going to post something that will lure the trolls into the sunlight. I’ve gotten some aggressive comments but nothing like this.

8. Pingback: Always wonder if I know any of these men? « and all the pieces matter

9. Thankfully, I never got overtly threatening comments when PFH was up. I used to trace the IP’s of the trolls (as in, the douchebags who left comments or sent emails like, “I’ll bet you’re a fat fugly dyke” or “SHUT YOUR BITCH MOUTH”) and publish their locations. But I’ve seen enough in other blogs to know it happens a lot–hell, I remember Anonymous’s efforts to shut down feminist blogs several years ago (as well as their efforts to harass feminist bloggers in meatspace by tracking down their addresses, etc.), as well as the Kathy Sierra debacle.

   Massive trigger warning: I read the Michigan Law Review article–I’m disgusted that local police didn’t think that someone posting the picture of someone’s 9-year-old daughter with her contact info and inviting people to rape her wasn’t an issue of concern. FFS. You can turn off the computer (though why should we have to?) but when you have stalker trolls who post your contact info and put up false ads like that one, it doesn’t matter, physical harm can come to you.

10. Andie:
    And once again I kneel down and give thanks for a small readership. I think the worst comment I ever got on my blog was being called‘ close-minded.’

    Cosign. I’m a lowly pop culture blogger with a small audience, and I still keep my comments on full mod.

11. No one deserves to get filth like that flung at them, and no one should have the right to use such language unchallenged. How best to get people to see that threatening language like that causes harm and provides cover?
    I am sorry that people think that is okay and that you get the fallout to deal with while they walk away and forget.

12. I guess I should be thankful for such small readership, because those comments were really hard to read and they’re not even directed at me. But I feel them nonetheless, and they feel awful.

13. I think it’s maybe a little bit sad that I found most of those funny, in a “haha look at these losers with nothing better to do” kind of way.

    I just don’t see why they’re here if they dislike the content that much. there’s a whole internet out there guys.

14. I had a thought the other day that someone could make some money by moderating other people’s blogs. The threats aren’t as scary when you know they are not directed specifically at you.

15. Those comments are disgusting.

16. ‘Spermy nosebleed’, holy fuck. I generally consider myself relatively desensitized, and not terribly quick to feel disgusted, but that one got me. Eugh.

17. “She’s lucky she only got a slap, any liberal bitch that aborted my baby would get their friggen ass kicked”

    I bet you anything that that dude was really talking about sons. He wouldn’t want his “baby” aborted if it was the possibility that the fetus would turn out to be a male baby. If it was a potential female baby, he most likely wouldn’t give a shit.
    Christ, I’m sorry you have to go through that Jill. Those comments are very disturbing indeed.

18. Such a coincidence?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/laurie-penny-a-womans-opinion-is-the-miniskirt-of-the-internet-6256946.html

19. I went to the range today, and I noticed that for the first time since I’ve started shooting most of the people occupying the lanes were women with sub-compact (i.e. concealed carry) handguns.

    And after reading those comments, i see why.

20. “I would so hit that, Jill.”

    ♪♫Isn’t it romannnnntiiiiiic…♪♫

    @bex #5: There are indeed people obsessed with rape as an insult, and use it on men as well as women, but I think that female writers online and feminist female writers especially get it worse. These guys use the ease and anonymity of the net to commit what is essentially e-sexual assault. Make no mistake, they know they are targeting a woman and they HOPE that their comments hurt or frighten the target.

21. Bex:
    I have definitely seen comments on the less-moderated interwebz suggesting that male bloggers, writers, video makers, etc. be raped. It is definitely not just a feminist or female blogger thing… people are pretty much obsessed with all kinds of rape, for all kinds of illogical causes

    The other thing, besides what Brian said, is that rape threats made towards female bloggers probably carry much more serious implications than rape threats made towards male bloggers. For a female blogger who gets a rape threat, it may seem much more likely, and in fact it may actually be much more likely, that this threat will be carried out, because real-life rapists target women so much more often than they target men. A male blogger who recieves a rape threat can probably generally rest assured that it won’t actually happen to him (I know there are exceptions, but this seems pretty much true).

    I’ve never recieved a rape threat online, but if (when??) I ever do I’ll think long and hard about whether the person who sent it to me is serious, because being a woman I know very well how likely I am to be targeted by a rapist.

22. Had a lot of trolls but these guys are kind of weird and sick some how realy freakish. They must be just shaking with contempt and frustration though. I wager she has given at least one of thease weirdos am ulcer or at least a few bad dreams lol

23. I turned off the comments on my blog, so I didn’t have to deal with this – and mine (mostly) weren’t anything as bad as those. I almost felt guilty doing it, as if I have a moral obligation to allow comments (it even says so in the Bible, I think…?); but in the end I decided blogging is just a hobby for me, and if vicious comments are making it not fun, there’s nothing wrong with just shutting them off.

24. Those comments are terrible. All I had to deal with is a guy who calls himself ‘TByte’ and that ‘Boycott American Women campaign.’ Then again my blog is very miniscule compared to Feministe.

25. You know…the reason they can get away with this shit is because the norms on the internet provide for anonymity. The autoadmit incident ended with whimper once their anonymity was threatened. Maddow had on a dude who started a campaign calling back people who had harrassed him for allowing an abortion clinic to rent his property. What we should do is say that people who threaten others forfeit their right to anonymity. Someone should create a centralized site and publish the IPs, email addys, contact their ISP, etc. It would have to be an org though, because if it was an individual, I would fear for hir safety.

26. Say what you want about Facebook, but I think one good thing it is doing is expanding the practice of people doing things online under their own names. You hardly ever see the kind of shit like Jill posted on Facebook, because people know that it comes back on them directly. And as more and more sites allow and encourage posting comments via Facebook accounts, maybe that will over time tend to spread that moderating influence over the rest of the web.

    Now, of course, online anonymity need to be protected in certain ways. Obviously, say, LGBT bloggers in repressive countries (or communities) need to be able to protect themselves, for one example. But comments on blogs? I don’t really see a problem with people having to register under their real name to comment, even if that name is only known to the blogger. Some people will scream “Censorship!” but since those are almost always the assholes committing the worst abuses, I think they can be ignored.

27. “I guess I should be thankful for such small readership…”

    Yeah, I rather suspect that is the goal? To the extent that there is a goal. Which shouldn’t make anyone feel guilty for the choices they make to stay sane and safe, but I think it’s important to point out and talk about.

    “Say what you want about Facebook, but …[y]ou hardly ever see the kind of shit like Jill posted on Facebook,”

    um, WHA???? Facebook has *entire pages* dedicated to shit like this (only being passed off as a joke) that people post on using their real names, that are allowed to stay up while pics of mothers breastfeeding children are taken down.

    Which brings me to this:

    “You know…the reason they can get away with this shit is because the norms on the internet provide for anonymity.”

    NO. They can get away with this because they get away with this. They do so in part because of anonymity, but also largely because it’s not considered important by most people. See: facebook rape pages, the incident that inspired Feministe’s tagline, the shit that Watson got not just online but in meatspace, etc.

    This isn’t to say that selectively taking away anonymity is not at times a useful tool, just that I think it’s dangerous to pretend that anonymity is what makes people mean on the internet. Not just because it gives cover to bad decisions like, well, everything about Google+’s name rules, but also because it masks the actual cultural roots of the problem. Anonymity is a tool that can be used for good or evil, it is not the evil itself.

28. Occupy Wall Street Erects Women-Only Tent After Reports Of Sexual Assaults

    The Gothamist, November 5

    In the wake of an alleged rape and a sexual assault in Zuccotti Park that resulted in the arrest of an Occupy Wall Street protester earlier this week, the movement has erected a women-only safe-space sleeping tent. According to the Post the 16-square-foot metal-framed tent will be watched by female members of the de-escalation team, and can sleep 18 people. “This is all about safety in numbers,” 24-year-old protester Becky Wartell says.

    One 23-year-old woman tells the paper that she’ll be sleeping in the safe space “partially because of the recent attacks that have been happening.” She adds, “I think that this will help bring more women to the movement as well. I think a lot of women have been hesitant and especially for those that are new and don’t know a lot of people it’s hard to find a safe place to stay.”

29. Brian Schlosser: I don’t really see a problem with people having to register under their real name to comment, even if that name is only known to the blogger. Some people will scream “Censorship!” but since those are almost always the assholes committing the worst abuses, I think they can be ignored.

    Then you flat out know nothing about the issues. There are a lot of reasons why a commenter might need anonymity, including from the blogger they’re commenting on, which includes protecting them from exactly this sort of problem if, say, a feminist comments on a non-feminist site which then links their online identity to their real one.

    In addition, as mentioned above, using wallet names doesn’t actually stop people from posting this shit. This is a well-known fact, proven time and again, and yet twits like you and the people behind G+ keep trotting out the idea that wallet names will somehow magically prevent spam or harassment, when it won’t.

30. I’m lucky in the sense that when I used to blog about sexual violence (mine was specifically a survivor blog), the worst I got was spam comments for incest and rape porn websites. The spam filter usually caught everything but it took a lot for me to learn not to look at the comments collected. It was horrifying that anyone, even a spam bot, would want to post that kind of stuff on a blog where I talked about surviving rape and incest, and the road back.

    But anyway, that is disgusting. I’m so sorry that you have to deal with that Jill. They are really shitty people, these people who leave you these comments.

31. Yes, sigh.

    The Guardian has a post on this today, too. Journalists are coming out and telling the sort of stuff they get, and at least one woman among them has curtailed her writing because of the threats.

32. Wow, what a damn shame that those idiot assholes exist in this world. If those are “real men” then I’m no part of that bullshit. Makes me ashamed to be male. You keep writing girls, I’m behind you all the way.

33. @Jennygadget
    re: ““Say what you want about Facebook, but …[y]ou hardly ever see the kind of shit like Jill posted on Facebook,”

    I was talking more about people’s personal walls as an analogy to blogs. Since you have to approve people who can post on your wall (or at least you can if you choose to set your privacy settings that way), it’s pretty unlikely that someone you know is going to post something like the examples Jill posted. And if they DO, well… then you know exactly who they are, and can take steps as appropriate.

    Yes, of course there is a LOT of repellent shit on Facebook. And since you can easily see who is active in, say, Pro-Rape groups, there is transparency. You can block those people. I don’t think that Facebook SHOULD delete those groups, personally. And I think they shouldn’t ban the breastfeeding groups. They shouldn’t ban anyone who isn’t breaking the law. (The pro-rape pages are maybe iffy, but I think they fall just shy of advocating breaking the law. I wouldn’t whats on them, I have no desire to see). As I said, the people on them are exposing themselves voluntarily to the scorn and disgust of the Net in general. I don’t want the pro-rape groups banned, and I will be very, very pleased if someday I read that someone lost their job or something equally serious BECAUSE they were posting rape apologia on Facebook.

    “but also because it masks the actual cultural roots of the problem.”

    I agree that anonymity isn’t the cause, it is a mask. But surely taking off the mask is a step in the right direction.

34. @Madgastronomer: It hasn’t worked YET because it isn’t universal and people are fighting against it. No, it won’t stop ALL abuse and spam. I don’t think I ever suggested that it would. But it provides accountability. It forces people to own their bile. It keeps people from hiding behind a fake name and spewing vitriol and pus. they have to do it under their own name, for the world to see and judge.

    It won’t make them better people, or change their minds, but in time it will force them back under their rocks and out of our collective hair.

    Now, as for this: “Then you flat out know nothing about the issues. There are a lot of reasons why a commenter might need anonymity, including from the blogger they’re commenting on, which includes protecting them from exactly this sort of problem if, say, a feminist comments on a non-feminist site which then links their online identity to their real one.”

    Well, just because you are on the side of justice and good (and I think you are, as am I), doesn’t mean you aren’t trolling if you are going to anti-feminist sites and arguing with their members. You may like going to MRA sites, for example, and throwing rocks at the hornets nest (or you may not, I don’t know what you do, please read “you” as a collective), but I don’t, because it is pointless trolling. Any site run by someone you can’t trust not to divulge your personal information is not a site you are probably going to feel welcome at and probably not one where you are going to make any converts. As it is now, site owners can, and often do, dig up info on commenters they don’t like and try to intimidate them in meatspace, so what would be different? I notice that Jill kept the email addresses in the examples she posted. Some are obviously fake, but some may be real. And I think she was 100% right to do so. And I think that if you or anyone else went to a site that was 180 degrees from your POV and posted material that the people on that site would think was trolling, it would be right for them to post your email as well.

    (Please note that I’m not judging the two sides as being morally the same. We are morally right, I am certain, and they are wrong. But we’re talking about the rules of discourse. I would say the same thing if it was about Red Sox fans trolling a Yankees forum)

    I am sure I am in the minority on this issue. I post under my real name, but I am well aware that as a member of several extremely privileged classes, its an result of my privilege that I can do so. But I believe that greater transparency will, in the long run, help make the web a better place.

35. Brian Schlosser:
    @Madgastronomer: It hasn’t worked YET because it isn’t universal and people are fighting against it. No, it won’t stop ALL abuse and spam. I don’t think I ever suggested that it would. But it provides accountability. It forces people to own their bile. It keeps people from hiding behind a fake name and spewing vitriol and pus. they have to do it under their own name, for the world to see and judge.

    Unless society actually DOES start punishing people who act like that, no, they’re not going to be driven under rocks. Until that day it still causes more harm to vulnerable populations to require real names than it does to discourage the bigots and the misogynists and the assholes.

    Well, just because you are on the side of justice and good (and I think you are, as am I), doesn’t mean you aren’t trolling if you are going to anti-feminist sites and arguing with their members. You may like going to MRA sites, for example, and throwing rocks at the hornets nest (or you may not, I don’t know what you do, please read “you” as a collective), but I don’t, because it is pointless trolling. Any site run by someone you can’t trust not to divulge your personal information is not a site you are probably going to feel welcome at and probably not one where you are going to make any converts. As it is now, site owners can, and often do, dig up info on commenters they don’t like and try to intimidate them in meatspace, so what would be different? I notice that Jill kept the email addresses in the examples she posted. Some are obviously fake, but some may be real. And I think she was 100% right to do so. And I think that if you or anyone else went to a site that was 180 degrees from your POV and posted material that the people on that site would think was trolling, it would be right for them to post your email as well.

    Or I could be posting to a general interest site, and a feminist topic could come up, and I could offend someone by insisting that women are people, and if that someone is the blogger or someone the blogger trusts, then they could get my real name and come after me. (Well, my handle is linked to my real name; the handle is unique, where my real name is not, and the handle actually makes it far easier to find me in person than my legal name does. But the point stands.) Your hypothetical is an extreme case; mine is far more common.

    And time and again, when women post feminist opinions on the internet under their wallet names, they are harassed. Not just online, in person. A blogger using the handle Karnythia (I can’t be bothered to look up her wallet name right this second) wrote an article for a major website about her abortion. She has received a great many death threats, and has been stalked in person by at least one person making those threats, someone who sent her details of where they saw her and what she was wearing. The police counted it a credible threat, but said there was nothing they could do.

    And no, having the wallet names accessible to just a few people on any site does not help. What if they get hacked? What if they share the information with someone who publishes it publicly? What if they themselves become a threat?

    And all of this has been pointed out again and again and again, and you just handwave it, and insist that your plan will magically work, and will be worth all the people it hurts. It’s bullshit. There is no evidence at all that it will work, and lots of evidence it won’t.

    How about the guys who write and draw Penny Arcade? Their real names and identities are well known, and they are somewhat public figures, as they also put on two major games expos. And yet they feel perfectly free to publish rape jokes, and to make merchandise which references those rape jokes. And they’ve been called on it by a lot of people now, but it doesn’t lose them much of their readership, so they don’t give a flying fuck. This is what I’m talking about.

    I am sure I am in the minority on this issue. I post under my real name, but I am well aware that as a member of several extremely privileged classes,its an result of my privilege that I can do so. But I believe that greater transparency will, in the long run, help make the web a better place.

    And that’s worth the pain and the lives it will cost in the meantime? Particularly when, again, there is no evidence whatsoever that you’re right, only your theory, and lots of evidence that you’re wrong? You are advocating something that demonstrably hurts people. Period. Your theory does not absolve you of that. You are advocating doing harm. Get that through your skull.

36. Why are all the quotes coming up with the spaces taken out?

37. My dude and I had a nyt wedding announcement in which it was mentioned that I do women’s rights work. A big blog that reports on the announcements when people in my profession get covered featured ours. The basic gist of the comments about me was, “Now that this dumb bitch is getting married, she’ll be knocked up and done with feminazi bullshit in no time.”

    I remember feeling lucky that I didn’t get worse–often commenters make rape threats about women in the featured announcements.

    And I felt this ridiculous sense of asking for it somehow, since we elected to be in the nyt.

38. MadGastronomer: And time and again, when women post feminist opinions on the internet under their wallet names, they are harassed. Not just online, in person. A blogger using the handle Karnythia (I can’t be bothered to look up her wallet name right this second) wrote an article for a major website about her abortion. She has received a great many death threats, and has been stalked in person by at least one person making those threats, someone who sent her details of where they saw her and what she was wearing. The police counted it a credible threat, but said there was nothing they could do.

    Not to mention that some people posting even on explicitly feminist websites have reasons to use anonymous handles: some may not want partners or employers tracking their discussions (which I’ve definitely seen come up on several shakesville comment threads; others may be unwilling to out themselves as survivors of sexual violence, as trans*, as queer, as having a mental illness, as drug users; the list goes on.

39. Tell me you forward these idiots to the police.
    Please.

40. MadGastronomer: Or I could be posting to a general interest site, and a feminist topic could come up, and I could offend someone by insisting that women are people, and if that someone is the blogger or someone the blogger trusts, then they could get my real name and come after me. (Well, my handle is linked to my real name; the handle is unique, where my real name is not, and the handle actually makes it far easier to find me in person than my legal name does. But the point stands.) Your hypothetical is an extreme case; mine is far more common.

    MadGastronomer: MadGastronomer 11.6.2011 at 6:38 am

    Why are all the quotes coming up with the spaces taken out?

    They have a bug right now. If you highlight the text you want to quote with your cursor and then click “Quote this comment”, the comment is fine.

41. You don’t actually even have to blog. Commenting on other sites is usually good for a “shut up, bitch. you’d be toast if there weren’t laws protecting you.”

42. Look, while I agree that in some instances, a loss of anonymity would keep people from posting or emailing threats and harassing people, there are plenty of cases where the opposite is true. There was a well-known blogger who posted a rape threat to Jill in one of the TSA threads. On Tiger Beatdown, s.e. smith talks about this–and uses as an example the time she got harassing and threatening emails from a dude who worked for a progressive organization, who sent it from his work email address. And even after she let his boss know, he was still working there. And according to her post, she wasn’t the only person he harassed.

    These shitheads get away with it because their friends and allies and the general public excuse it. Any woman who complains is starting drama (not the douche who started sending threats, oddly enough). He’s really a nice guy! He didn’t really mean it, he was just blowing off steam! Don’t be such a victim (because pointing out that someone is being a threatening stalker creep is so very contemptible). FFS, the University of Michigan paper that’s linked cites someone posting the home address of someone’s 9-year-old daughter and invites people to rape her. And the cops didn’t think it was a big deal. It doesn’t matter if they know who’s doing it or not if they don’t think making rape threats to children isn’t a big goddamn deal.

    This will continue as long as we as a society deem the lives and well-being of women, people of color, LBGT people, and other marginalized people as unimportant.

43. Sheelzebub: This will continue as long as we as a society deem the lives and well-being of women, people of color, LBGT people, and other marginalized people as unimportant.

    True enough…but some triage might hlp some women right now. What if in addition to the loss of annonymity…the asshats received a no contact letter indicating a willingness to sue for iied? I don’t think you could prevail…but…

44. Before blasting me, this is not a proposal, just a thought.

    There is an organized war being waged BY MEN, against women. The aggressors use all weapons available to them, including violence and intimidation.

    Why is it that, defending ourselves, women have to limit our options to (in my opinion) little more than gentle criticism?

45. @toritan: We’re at a stage where there doesn’t seem to be much else to do. “Gentle criticism” is all we can get away with. It’s all good fun to beat our chests in anonymous internet forums, but telling your friends and family that this… Yes, THIS, is what you would like to see, and how you would like to live, is more likely to cause you individual harm than alleviate it.

46. That said, if everyone else will raise their shields…
    It seems imperative to get women to acknowledge inequities, and a personal stake in them, before we hand them swords.

47. Kristen J.: True enough…but some triage might hlp some women right now. What if in addition to the loss of annonymity…the asshats received a no contact letter indicating a willingness to sue for iied? I don’t think you could prevail…but…

    Problem is, we can’t take away the asshat’s anonymity without taking it away from people who really need it.

48. I disagree. Unless you’re making the slippery slope argument there’s no reason why unmasking people threatening others would result in the general loss of anonymity.

49. Kristen J

    In theory I agree with you, but in practice? When the loudest people on your side are guys like Brian? Who understand neither the concept of listening to women nor how anonymity has long been a tool oppressed groups have used to combat oppression? When you, yourself are arguing that it is anonymity itself that is a root cause of bad behavior, rather than a sometimes cover for it (and sometimes tool to fight against it)? Then it’s not just a slippery slope but a very real danger that outing people will become a standard practice – and oppressed groups will lose a tool that has historically been extremely effective.

    This isn’t to say that I don’t think that outing should never happen – Markuze is a good example of when it should – I’m saying it should be rare and that there should be clear guidelines for doing it. Your earlier arguments especially are suggesting something quite different, as far as I can tell, in addition to advancing arguments that shift responsibility for the behavior, hide how widespread and accepted it is, and minimize how useful anonymity has been to oppressed groups.

    ****

    “But it provides accountability. It forces people to own their bile.”

    yeah…try telling that to Digby you privileged, ignorant….[mumble mumble mumble]. The problem, again, is that you think people are too ashamed to won their own bile. Sadly, they are not.

    “I agree that anonymity isn’t the cause, it is a mask. But surely taking off the mask is a step in the right direction.”

    OMG you arrogant can’t-be-bothered-to-listen piece of shit. I was not saying that anonymity was a mask, I was saying your false bullshit belief that anonymity makes people do mean things masks the fact that they do it because they get away with it often without the cover of anonymity.

    You, for example, have no problems showing everyone what a arrogant mansplainer you are under your real name. So, tell me Brian Schlosser, which is worse – you having no problems with being a sexist asshole under your real name, or me using some insults and swear words under a sorta-pesudonym?

50. Kristen J.: I disagree. Unless you’re making the slippery slope argument there’s no reason why unmasking people threatening others would result in the general loss of anonymity.

    How do you propose doing it then? By custom? How can you enforce that? By law? Any law made will be disproportionately used against people who are already disadvantaged, just like all the laws we already have. There simply is no way to remove the anonymity of asshats that would not also remove it from those who need it. Outing doesn’t work, either, as straight cis white guys are, if anything, more willing to utilizes those tactics against people who aren’t all of those things than we are against them. What safeguards could you possibly put in place that would not affect women, POC, queer people, trans people, etc, etc, far more than it would ever effect the people who do this shit?

51. What prevents it now? Jill has your IP. What prevents her from publishing your private info now?

52. Nothing whatsoever, except maybe her own ethics. But what keeps the assholes from doing so, when we comment on their blogs? Far less, since they don’t have good ethics. And outing them makes them far more likely to out us. Plus, outing them doesn’t work.

53. I don’t comment on people’s sites where I don’t think they have ethics. Also outing does work on a lot of people see the Maddow example I listed above.

54. Not everyone does what you do. And counterexamples have been offered, plus, seriously, a lot of these guys say this shit in person, in their every day lives. Unless they have a particular kind of public life where this could actually hurt them — they’re in politics, or in certain kinds of jobs — they mostly simply don’t care. This has been demonstrated again and again.

55. So you’re essentially arguing that we’re engaged in a “cold war” of mutually assured distruction…so, I say fuck it. I don’t need those sites and I don’t think they are forwarding social justice in any productive way. So which do you prefer…avoiding those sites or women writers and bloggers being bullied out of online society?

56. And again you’re saying that everyone should do what you do. But, see, it’s also possible for the assholes to find us other ways than us commenting on their sites, and then publish that information. It happens all the fucking time.

57. And, again, outing them doesn’t work. It doesn’t hurt most of these guys. The legal system won’t take it seriously, you can’t win a lawsuit, and they don’t actually care if people know it’s them. If there’s some chance it might work, then I’m all for it, but generally we have a lot more to lose in an outing war than they do.

58. Right…I know…I get it…but they can do that *now*. If they want to do it…they will *now*. I don’t see how refraining from outting them is stopping them from doing anything.

59. *shrug* Fine, if you want to out them, do so. Good luck with that.

60. “I don’t comment on people’s sites where I don’t think they have ethics.”

    So….what if it turns out you judged them wrong? This line of “well *I* don’t do *that*” comes across as very victim-blaming to me.

61. And yet they feel perfectly free to publish rape jokes, and to make merchandise which references those rape jokes. And they’ve been called on it by a lot of people now, but it doesn’t lose them much of their readership, so they don’t give a flying fuck.

    This might be a little off topic, but I went to see A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas this weekend with a group of friends- and right smack dab in the middle was a rape joke, or should I say, scene. The joke is supposed to be that we know Neil Patrick Harris is gay, but what if it’s just a public persona to lure women into vulnerable positions to being raped? But I can imagine that if you didn’t previously know much about Neil Patrick Harris, you wouldn’t really get the joke and it would just come off as a really sick rape joke. Or maybe it is.

62. Wow…its victim blaming to say that if you share your private information with people who make rape threats, you should accept the risk that they may publish that information that you disclosed? Are blog owners now akin to lawyers and doctors in that they are held to a duty of confidentiality?

63. “So….what if it turns out you judged them wrong?”

    “Wow…its victim blaming to say that if you share your private information with people who make rape threats, you should accept the risk that they may publish that information that you disclosed?”

    O.o

    No, but it’s pretty damn douchey – not to mention, yes, victim-blamey – to jump from “judged them wrong” to “people who make rape threats.”

    So…there is nothing but extremes here? What about people like Markos that don’t make rape threats themselves, but defend the people that do? If Markos ever does anything less than trustworthy with the information at his disposal, do we simply figure that the people that were stupid enough to post on Daily Kos got what they were asking for?

    Inasmuch as posting at even Feministe involves all kinds of intermediaries, the whole “well just don’t post on sites you don’t trust” philosophy seems pretty doomed from the start, imho. And yes, by putting all the onus on those that are vulnerable, very victim-blamey.

64. “Right…I know…I get it…but they can do that *now*. If they want to do it…they will *now*. I don’t see how refraining from outting them is stopping them from doing anything.”

    Kristen, the issue is not one of expecting the kinds of people that make rape threats to value others anonymity, but with establishing standards of anonymity that do not give cover to actions like those of Google+, that establish and explain the ethics of anonymity to would-be and reluctant allies.

    Just out them! and Anonymity leads to bad behavior! doesn’t do that. Establishing standards of conduct that apply to everyone, advocating for the right to be anon in the absence of that – these are things that allow for both anonymity and – in extreme cases – the outing of dangerous people.

    Quite frankly, if you or Brian or anyone else thinks outing people is going to really do a whole lot of good, I suggest you start with taking a page from Amanda Marcotte’s book and making even more public the names of people who have no problem posting rape jokes under their real names on facebook. Because until you can be certain that will help, it seems really silly to jump to advocating outing people that are anon, considering what harm may also come from making it socially acceptable to out people.

65. the cost off freedom of speach is hearing things you dont want to hear.I know its hard to put up with that shit and some of it is fucked up,but to save your freedom you have to save the gobshits aswell.just dont let them stop you.

66. OK, you know? Let’s not forget that some people will send their emails or post through proxy servers. So sometimes you can’t find out who they are (you need to be able to trace that, and just asking the proxy service nicely isn’t going to get you anywhere–and law enforcement? Come on! See: posted rape threats to a 9-YEAR-OLD GIRL WERE BRUSHED OFF), and you don’t necessarily know if the “legitimate” name they’re using is actually legitimate.

67. It’s sad state of the world that a blog like this has become a punching bag for people who feel personally inadequate. There’s plenty in our current events to make people feel threatened, and kicking someone else–while horribly wrong and stupid–must momentarily make them feel better??? I hope it at least helps them refrain from punching their girlfriends, pets or kids. If they have any. It’s like you’re providing an unfortunate public service for Loser Assholes.

68. the cost off freedom of speach is hearing things you dont want to hear.

    debatable. The cost of freedom of speech is certainly that other people have it too, and they may say things you don’t want to hear. Whether or not you have to listen to it though…

    Plus, there is a HUGE difference between opinions and threats. The latter are often illegal – technically, if not in practical terms.

    and you don’t necessarily know if the “legitimate” name they’re using is actually legitimate.

    yeah, like, this is the thing about outing people and outlawing pseudonyms and anons, it’s certainly possible that Brian Schlosser’s real name is Brian Schlosser, but who the fuck knows? This is, after all, one of the major issues with Google+’s policy and how they enforce it. Unless you want to attach everything to gov issued ID’s (and hell, isn’t that a scary thought) you make it really easy to sign up with a fake “American” sounding name, while other people who sign up with their real names get kicked off because they “sound wrong” to whatever person or software at google is in charge of the policing.

    (although, that does make me want to start a campaign of people signing up for Google+ using the names of famous but not nearly well known enough women from history)

69. It is a mistake to think that just because a BLOG owner has user IP info he or she knows anyone’s identity in real life. Proxy servers, IP block assignments to large ISPs, IP lease periods, deliberate manipulation and a host of other factors mask individual information pretty effectively.

70. @Jennygadget: I’m really not sure how wanting people who make rape jokes and rape threats and perpetuate rape culture to be held accountable for their actions makes me a “mansplaining sexist piece of shit asshole”. I never once said that anonymity MAKES people become assholes on the internet, I said it sure HELPS them get away with it. And, as has been pointed out to me, plenty of people don’t even need to be masked to be scumbags

    I am NOT against anonymity. It is valuable in many places and in many ways. And, I admit it, your arguments have pretty much convinced me that wallet names are not a panacea for the problem the post was about. Society isn’t ready, and it WOULD harm people and that is not worth standing up for the princple. But damn… I want to live in a world where we don’t HAVE to be anonymous because there AREN’T people out there willing to hurt or threaten us because of our beliefs. I know we aren’t there yet.

    I AM privileged, I know that, I said that, and you felt the need to bring it up again, and I’ll say it again: as a man in this society, I am very privileged. I do NOT have to worry about someone coming to rape or kill me because they don’t like feminism or women or both. The worst I have to be afraid of is being called a mangina or something. So, sincerely, thank you for showing me an aspect of my privilege I wasn’t aware of previously.

71. Also @jennygadget: Do you think I should not post under my real name? It occurs to me now in light of this discussion that it could be seen in the wrong light.

72. I’m really not sure how wanting people who make rape jokes and rape threats and perpetuate rape culture to be held accountable for their actions makes me a “mansplaining sexist piece of shit asshole”.

    O.o

    The name calling was due to you clearly not bothering to even read the part of my comment that you quoted – seeing as how you claimed to agree with the part quoted and then elaborated on your agreement by saying the exact opposite.

    (Plus the fact that it came right on the heels of another guy on another thread on another site posting the same idea I had just presented to the thread not hours before – without giving me credit, mentioning my name, or quoting any part of the relevant comment of mine. I had kinda reached my limit that day of the kinds of crap that would fit very nicely into How To Suppress Women’s Writing.)

    Do you think I should not post under my real name?

    I think you should post under whatever name you want to post. That you should be aware that being able to do so without most people assuming unflattering things about you does not mean that I think you should not do so – just that I wish everyone could.

    The only thing I really want you (and all other guys) to do, is to remember that when you do or say something stupid and can’t figure out just why it got such an extreme reaction – keep in mind that it’s likely not the first time that’s happened – even in that same day. I get that it’s all new to you, but for the rest of us it’s the same old shit. Really, really, tiring and frustrating and demoralizing shit.

73. jennygadget: No, but it’s pretty damn douchey – not to mention, yes, victim-blamey – to jump from “judged them wrong” to “people who make rape threats.”

    Except I was talking specifically about using an org to create a collective response to people who make threats that would (1) identify them and (2) send them a legal response. It was others who went from “people threaten” to “people who are generalized assholes and might publish your information.” But hey, why argue with my point when you can argue with something I wasn’t talking about.

    Also, you keep saying it doesn’t work…but we know that sometimes it does (i.e., autoadmit) so we can sit here and talk about how its *too hard* or we can try to come up with something. But in my view the status quo doesn’t work.

74. @jennygadget: I genuinely chose my words poorly in the “masks” comment (and overall, since I was pretty much almost completely off base and hadn’t thought myself through) and I definitely misread you. This was not at all due to your writing but to my misinterpretation of it. Which is on me entirely.

    “just that I wish everyone could.”

    I do too. Fervently. That was the point I was trying to make, but I was wrong in the way I proposed we get to that place.

    It’s not totally new to me, but I see exactly what you mean. And I didn’t earlier. So, I thank you for the edification. Seriously.

75. Pingback: #MenCallMeThings reveals what’s inside everyone’s Anti-Feminist Mailbag

76. Yeah, blogging can be tough. I’ve been doing it for six years and have seen death threats, threats of harm, “praying” for harm, porno postings, harassment, libel and comments where it was clear I was being watched (describing my clothes and what I was doing at a particular time or place). emails harassing me tracing back to City Hall. Last week, I read online somewhere that I had an abortion? How do they come up with this stuff? Posting my neighborhood or even my address online in places like Craigslist, not cool.

    The scary thing was some of them were cops. There were some investigations including one by the FBI but not much. I have to take precautions. But do you let it stop you or do you continue? Yeah I think being female’s somewhat tougher b/c sexism makes more ways for females to be targeted. I had to disable comments.

    I collected IP information, the only time I ever published the IP trail online was when it was city government owned. After all, my taxes paid for that. Four days later, that harasser emailed me back “apologizing” from a different IP and promising to close the email account they took out in my name. Sources did tell me who was responsible and through sources I’ve found the names of others who have done it but without proof, it’s hard to make claims. This is only in cases where there are threats to my safety.

    this blog posting complete with a cartoon rendition of me was kind of a response to me blogging about how this blogger was hitting up city council members running for elections for money to print ads and the one candidate running for mayoral who wouldn’t pay up wound up getting castigated in public by him for that reason. So I probably deserved it.

    The claymation video of me that’s running on YouTube is much cuter at least.

77. That said, the majority of my blog readers tend to be very supportive of it so I focus a lot on the positive and not as much as the negative. In the long run, it’s been very rewarding but that doesn’t mean it’s not had its scary or unpleasant moments too.

78. That said, I have to add that blogging for the most part has been very positive and I’ve gotten a lot of support too from various places. Important to remember during the more difficult moments of it.

    But the above person I had actually assisted him when he had computer issues, virus issues, etc. but he’s getting some heat along with a political candidate who’s paid him that he endorses from Fair Political Practices possibly so he might be wilting under that.

79. I’m sorry that anyone has to deal with this amount of crap. I am glad that the feminist blogosphere exists and that now there is a central jackass database.

80. MG:

    “But what keeps the assholes from doing so, when we comment on their blogs? Far less, since they don’t have good ethics.”

    Kristen J:

    “I don’t comment on people’s sites where I don’t think they have ethics. ”

    This? Doesn’t have shit to do with any proposal to create an organization to track down and out threatening commenters based on a publicly stated and widely accepted standard of behavior. This, is you stating what you do and judging people for not being you.

    Also, while outing them does sometimes work (and, excuse me? where have never argued that it doesn’t ever) this:

    You know…the reason they can get away with this shit is because the norms on the internet provide for anonymity.

    Is still utter bullshit.

    And dangerous bullshit as well.

    They can get away with this shit because they are allowed to. Anons can make that easier, but they can also do a lot of good, and sometimes they don’t make any difference at all. Taking away anonymity in the Autoadmit fiasco mattered because it involved legally actionable threats and people who planned to work in the legal profession. That isn’t always going to be the case.

    Claiming that anonymity is the reason for threatening behavior – rather than a complicated layer – makes people who rely on pseudonyms more vulnerable. Including not just the people doing the threatening, but those getting threatened.

    Plus this:

    Except I was talking specifically about using an org to create a collective response to people who make threats that would (1) identify them and (2) send them a legal response.

    Is not the same as this:

    Someone should create a centralized site and publish the IPs, email addys, contact their ISP, etc. It would have to be an org though, because if it was an individual, I would fear for hir safety.

    Aside from the fact that outing someone publicly is very different than sending a legal response – starting with the fact that a legal response assumes a clear standard regarding which behavior gets a response in the first place…

    A “collective response” =/= “org”. these are not synonymous. A collective response speaks to that idea of clear community standards that I have been talking about. Saying that you think the site should be run by an org and not an individual – esp when your stated reason being so as not to put a specific person in danger – does not.

    So, if your idea initially was that we should “create a collective response to people who make threats that would (1) identify them and (2) send them a legal response” – then next time say that. And stop getting all pissy at people when they rightly call you out for the shit you have said.

81. Pingback: Sticks and Stones « lipstickandteeth
82. Pingback: The Lady Blogosphere and Tahrir Square: Why all the Backlash? « Anna Louie Sussman, Outstanding Writer

Comments are currently closed.