I'm sorry what is the purpose of this nitpick? It's a title obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, that's why there is a story. What's next are you going to complain that there is no actual mockingbird being killed in Harper Lees book?!
Is it that you don't agree with this person's politics why you are so dismissive?
I think that, no matter what hate groups they cover, I find it really hard to see a man getting death threats for tweeting about being annoyed by someone interrupting their workout to comment on their body. I feel like there's a qualitative difference in those two experiences
The tweet was not a comic, just a tweet. I don't see how that connects to the comic. If they were already known to the hate group, then I think they're using that as an excuse. If it predates the notoriety, then that's different.
Sorry I misunderstood your comment. It seemed like you weren't sure if the vitriol was due to the tweet itself or some other notoriety. I don't have any more information than you do, but I'm sure you can figure it out based on the date of the tweet
As far as I can tell, she never ran a piece on hate groups - she talks about the proud boys leader making a long vitriolic video in response to one of her comics, not that she ever interacted with them.
She's thrown her hat into the realm of public opinion taking sides on issues.
This is not a 'random person' so it's at least a tiny bit disingenuous for the author to represent themselves as 'nobody' when their own substack headline trails with 'trying to raise hell'.
I would imagine this was a milquetoast tweet that got picked up by the algorithm, or shared in the feeds of dumb trolls.
The best way to evaluate how often this happens would be to look at the various tweets of various people and see which one's hit, and why.
It might very well be that women are more likely to be victims but I think it's probably more or less even between genders, whereas men are more likely to be trolls. But that's just a guess.
It's not her substack, this was a guest post on lyz's "Men Yell At Me" substack. Also it's quite hilarious to complain about someone "trying to raise hell" when everyone knows that the other side is constantly spouting rabid anti-Semitism and other hateful memes purely "for teh lulz", of which many examples are provided in the post.
What's 'hilarious' is the total lack of self awareness among the 'sides' who think their opponents are evil and are clueless as to their own transgressions.
As for the substack, well if it's not hers, then that's sad that a 'true nobody' would get trolled, but in my own running the gauntlet of Twitter inanity I don't see anything other than ignorance and playground antics in every direction among the troposphere.
In fact, I would think it problematic that someone wandering through the slums would even fathom there are 'sides' to anything.
Even if that was true or reasonable, getting ganged up on by rabid anti-Semites and "Proud" Boys who actually know who you are is much scarier than any online deplatforming. I know what I would rather have, given the choice. And the difference is that much more relevant for women, for rather obvious reasons.
I guess that's inadvertently a good example of how different our experiences on the internet are then. Deplatforming certainly also happens to women - we men just get to dodge the death and other threats.
I think it's pretty easy to observe this by, instead of looking at the hated public figures, looking at the championed ones. Right and left leaning female public figures still get a lot of vile comments thrown at them and a lot of sexualization from within their "support base". Men hardly receive that at all - we may be attacked by haters for our comments, but simply being a public woman online exposes you to a lot of emotional abuse.
Some women certainly avoid it by just not going to those neighborhoods of the internet, but if that neighborhood is somewhere you'd like to go (if, for instance, you like video games) you have to choose between receiving that abuse or just not accessing the same entertainment services as men.
Men are championed or derided for their physical appearances.
The #1 predictor in a US Presidential Election is the height of the candidate.
Men who are small, short, effete, high pitched voices, who appear 'chubby' as opposed to 'big boned' are not seen as 'real leaders'.
We are not all like that obviously, it's just a tertiary effect, but it is absolutely real and pervasive.
If Hillary Clinton had the appearance of one of those blonde female lawyer types on Fox News, she might have received more votes (which is arguably sexist),
but if Pete Buttigieg were a little taller, square jawed, not gay, and slipped in a few slightly nationalist statements and could maybe throw a football ... he'd have a real shot at being president. I'm not positing that any of this is good (or bad), I'm just indicating that I believe men and women are judged on their posture and appearance.
I believe it would be harder for women in certain circumstances (male dominated situations, of which there are many) to gain credibility however.
In the only US Presidential election which has ever featured a female contender, she won the popular vote.
I'll bet that this trend continues, and that that every US Presidential election featuring a male and female candidate, there's little or no gender differentiation.
We have dozens of elections to test our height thesis and other data as well such as income.
I searched for the data (it was on BI some years ago) sorry I couldn't find it, but I remember distinctly seeing for that females, they were paid more if they were taller and thinner (and punished for being heavy) whereas men were paid more if they were taller and bigger (i.e. 'girth / total mass').
"Do you genuinely think that a man with this level of medium-notoriety would so consistently get abuse like this?"
Yes, and it might be an essential part of the borderline bigotry of the premise of the article.
All people with outsized voices are attacked on the web for any number of reasons.
Paradoxically, we have a 'gendered instinct' I think to believe that women are somehow, always more vulnerable.
For example, most people believe that women are more often victims of violence, when in fact men are about 4x more likely to be assaulted killed than women. The conditions are a bit different - not mostly not. That fact doesn't sit well with our instincts.
I think men are way more likely to be trolls (I'm not sure, just guessing) but men are just as likely to be victims of trolling. And politics I think is irrelevant.
I don't believe an article about a rando tweet and a foray into the depths of perverse 4Chan in 2021 is enlightening.
I will say however, it's ridiculous that people go up and bother women at the gym. Hey Zeus that would be annoying.
reply