Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

No, that's not what anyone is saying. "Cyberbullying" is always about bullies using the internet to continue the bullying, or in the case of people like Sarkeesian, guilty of the horrible crime of having an unpopular opinion on the internet, a large group of people repeatedly shouting "you're a worthless whore and should go kill yourself before I go to [your actual home address because you've been doxed] and rape you to death".

No that is specifically what those statistics are saying through their manipulation.

[Morrigi]

"Cyberviolence" is a term that should not exist. Seriously, fuck whoever thinks "Someone was mean on the internet" is violence. I don't give a fuck who it's directed at - anything that does not involve direct physical harm cannot be considered violence by any reasonable person under any circumstances.

No. Psychological harm is just as bad as physical harm. Pretending bullying of any kind does not result in psychological harm is ridiculous. Sticks and stones is childish nonsense - nobody with any understanding of basic human psychology would argue anything else.

Psychological harm is harmful. But there's a big difference between being in an emotionally abusive relationship or seeing a close friend or family member get shot or being deprived of sleep by interrogators or something like that, and having some stupid kid make fun of you, even if the do it constantly.

Bullying activates pretty much the exact same mechanisms as psychological torture, so yes, it pretty much does. Saying that psychological and social bullying is "just some kid being mean to you" is very comparable to saying "psychological torture is just some guy being mean to you". Don't be such a pussy, dude! Man up.

Dude, you can't first go "only physical violence matters" and then right afterwards go "women don't need special protection" when, if only physical violence matters, the average man is literally built to take more violence than the average woman. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Someone being more physically capable doesn't mean being subject to physically violence any less severe.
Someone doesn't (or at least shouldn't) get a reduced sentence if the person they were hitting was swole, bro.

Well duh. How fortunate then that I wasn't in any way saying that it should.

Tbh even making a distinction between harassing irl and online was counterproductive, harassment should be harassment

The problem is, that the real life equivalent is just someone calling another person a dick.

That isn't bullying.

Yet they are making the online version of that into cyberbullying... because it is worse if it is online somehow.

No, that's not what anyone is saying. "Cyberbullying" is always about bullies using the internet to continue the bullying, or in the case of people like Sarkeesian, guilty of the horrible crime of having an unpopular opinion on the internet, a large group of people repeatedly shouting "you're a worthless whore and should go kill yourself before I go to [your actual home address because you've been doxed] and rape you to death".

Which is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as someone actually being raped to death. That's the whole point.

[ArKFallen]

Which is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as someone actually being raped to death. That's the whole point.

WTF. Is this an escalated strawman or is someone or something actually contending this?

[Neonivek]

Which is bad, but it's not nearly as bad as someone actually being raped to death. That's the whole point.

WTF. Is this an escalated strawman or is someone or something actually contending this?

I can't tell O_O

[scriver]

There was a similar turn of phrase used in the article, but it's fairly self suggestive that they said it in a "if they both end up with the victim dead then how big a difference dies it really make" kind of statement.

[Neonivek]

There was a similar turn of phrase used in the article, but it's fairly self suggestive that they said it in a "if they both end up with the victim dead then how big a difference dies it really make" kind of statement.

A lot...

Drinking and Driving and shooting someone gets the same results but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

[Frumple]

They are equivalent in some jurisdictions when they end up killing someone. Sometimes it can get reduced sentencing ("mere" criminally negligent homicide, or some variation of manslaughter), sometimes not. Personally, I'd damn sure call it an equivalent act insofar as appropriate legal repercussions go. There can be worse sorts of homicide, sure, but it's still homicide at a minimum. Which would be the degree of equivalence being talked about.

[i2amroy]

A lot...

Drinking and Driving and shooting someone gets the same results but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

On the other hand stabbing someone to death and shooting someone to death are both treated exactly the same in the eyes of the law.

Honestly I think the difference lies a lot in intent. When you drink and drive usually it's more accidental if somebody dies than on purpose, so it's a lesser punishment. Similarly bullying with the intent of driving someone to suicide is no different than using any other psychological torture to get someone to kill themselves, and in that fashion is the same as murder. However it's also important to note that not necessarily all bullies intend to drive their victims to death, so there is a bit more range for a gradient of intentions (and thus punishment levels) than you have with just straight murder.

[scriver]

There was a similar turn of phrase used in the article, but it's fairly self suggestive that they said it in a "if they both end up with the victim dead then how big a difference dies it really make" kind of statement.

A lot...

Drinking and Driving and shooting someone gets the same results but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

Which isn't in any way related to the discussion as the phrasing used was outright killing someone versus harrassing them until they killed themselves.

[Rolan7]

... some of us like station wagons. S'actually just about my favorite sort of car from a functionality standpoint -- small enough to not be cumbersome and still enough space you can easily carry most of a single person's general living supplies with them on a move, while usually managing better gas mileage and whatnot than most other stuff that can manage the latter (and usually failing on the oversized metric in the process, to boot). It's just one of the better vehicle designs from a workability standpoint.

Just have to paint it purple and y'can call it a day. They're good cars. I'd be relatively cheery about a chance to win a pinto -- prefer something a bit newer, but still. Been driving a '95 model station wagon for the last eight years or so. Good order replacement would be nice.

Hell yeah!  Station wagons are a great mix of space and efficiency.  Put the back seats down and mine's fairly comfortable to sleep in on long trips.

[Neonivek]

There was a similar turn of phrase used in the article, but it's fairly self suggestive that they said it in a "if they both end up with the victim dead then how big a difference dies it really make" kind of statement.

A lot...

Drinking and Driving and shooting someone gets the same results but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

Which isn't in any way related to the discussion as the phrasing used was outright killing someone versus harrassing them until they killed themselves.

It is 100% related. Using the internet versus real life are not like using different guns to commit first degree murder.

They are trying to diminish the nuance because they don't understand the internet. Because you know... McDonalds intentionally kills children with Hamburger. Videogames teach kids to kill... and all that.

The fact that there is a victim in both situations doesn't mean they are equivalent even in the slightest.

[SealyStar]

"Cyberviolence" is a term that should not exist. Seriously, fuck whoever thinks "Someone was mean on the internet" is violence. I don't give a fuck who it's directed at - anything that does not involve direct physical harm cannot be considered violence by any reasonable person under any circumstances.

No. Psychological harm is just as bad as physical harm. Pretending bullying of any kind does not result in psychological harm is ridiculous. Sticks and stones is childish nonsense - nobody with any understanding of basic human psychology would argue anything else.

Swindling the goddamn UN into saying this shit is a slap in the face (no pun intended) to actual victims of violence.

Also, fuck whoever thinks "women and girls" (another "I'll save you, m'lady"ism that should be metaphorically euthanized) need special protection. Fuck whoever thinks men don't suffer from violence. Fuck whoever thinks men don't suffer the majority of real and "cyber" violence in this world. Fuck this code of chivalry bullshit that drives people to think "What about m'lady" 99% of the fuckshitchrist time.

The fact that this wound up before the UN, in my conspiratorial mind, is part of the usual thing where third-world countries with shitty human rights records take advantage of minor problems in Western countries to go after them for "human rights violations".

Dude, you can't first go "only physical violence matters" and then right afterwards go "women don't need special protection" when, if only physical violence matters, the average man is literally built to take more violence than the average woman. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Wow.

You really missed the point. Did I say I don't think actual bullying or harassment is bad? No.

I implied that I doubt whether the majority of the "abuse" of Nuestra Señora de Femfreq is actually abuse, seeing as she likes to lable any opposition or dissent as such. More importantly, though, I questioned the accuracy of the term "violence" - which almost always signifies physical harm, to refer to it.

It's a transparent propaganda ploy to make people associate online harassment, real or percieved, with physical violence. Add on the wanton gendering of the act, and it becomes an obvious case of authoritarians literally putting online nastiness on the level of violent rape and acid attacks. It's political brainwashing that is as commendable as it is disgusting for its sheer deviousness and audacity.

[Neonivek]

I mean SealyStar isn't beating someone to death in real life exactly the same as saying bad comments about them online and they commit suicide?

There is a victim in both cases so they are exactly the same thing.

We should in fact start calling Cyberbullying something like... Cyberviolence because they are so exactly the same.

And because beating someone to death is the same as cyberbullying... We should just call it Fistbullying.

[i2amroy]

Even if much of it isn't actual "violence" as you term it, based on the scale (and some of the comments I've actually seen) at least a portion of it actually is, and it's that portion that we should be talking about.

Note: This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with her, and in fact I disagree with most of her opinions. Being a victim doesn't necessarily make you immune to being wrong. But that doesn't mean that the people attacking her aren't doing something bad. You don't get a "get out of jail free" pass for killing a murderer, and psychologically attacking hostile person is no less worse than psychologically attacking a non-hostile one.

I mean SealyStar isn't beating someone to death in real life exactly the same as saying bad comments about them online and they commit suicide?

There is a victim in both cases so they are exactly the same thing.

We should in fact start calling Cyberbullying something like... Cyberviolence because they are so exactly the same.

Intention is the difference! The thing people need to remember though is that not all bullies specifically are trying to kill someone, and those that aren't should be seeing a lesser level of punishment, the same way that people who drive drunk don't get the same level as first degree murderers, who don't get the same level as third or second degree murderers. Intention makes a difference!

[ArKFallen]

A lot...

Drinking and Driving and shooting someone gets the same results but I wouldn't say they are equivalent.

Which isn't in any way related to the discussion as the phrasing used was outright killing someone versus harrassing them until they killed themselves.

You just reaffirmed what Neon said
You can harass someone without intending for them to die. You will just always harass them until they kill themselves if you don't stop because you can't harass them after they are dead.

It's similar to how that nurse committed suicide after a prank by Australian radio personality. People wanted him arrested.

edit:I am too slow