from the more-than-just-a-40-year-old-TV-series dept.
Three months after she introduced the Internet Swatting Hoax Act in US Congress, Representative Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) found herself at the end of an apparent swatting attempt on Sunday night.
Melrose, Massachusetts police press spokesperson John Guilfoil confirmed to Ars Technica that the department received a phone call from "a computerized voice, not a natural voice" alleging "shots fired" and an "active shooter" at the address of Clark's home. The resulting police report confirmed an incident time of 9:57pm for a "life alert alarm" and "automated call reporting shooter."
This type of police report—using a disguised voice to allege false threats at a residence—is known as "swatting," due to the likelihood that police departments will react by sending SWAT teams to respond to serious-sounding threats. In the case of the Sunday night call, however, Guilfoil confirmed that Melrose police followed "established protocols" to choose a de-escalated response of normal police officers, though the officers in question blocked traffic on both ends of Clark's street with patrol cars. Guilfoil was unable to clarify whether weapons were drawn at the scene, and he did not answer our other questions about the incident, particularly those about the nature of the phone call received, "due to the ongoing nature of the investigation."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @11:25AM
Well isn't that convenient.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @12:05PM
I know it's not the PC thing to say, but given I know some backstory with this women and who she runs with, I find this to be a little too convenient and similar to tactics some of her friends have used. She's been on a downward spiral in support for awhile now because of her support for censorship... I mean "anti-harassment of women" laws.
Maybe she's just pissed off the wrong internet troll, and I hope they catch the asshole if that's the case, but she's not a clean whistle herself and I wouldn't be surprised to find out she was involved in this to get some sympathy points to boost her dwindling support.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @02:19PM
Wow. [thehill.com]
I can get behind an anti-SWATing law. What I can't get behind is her dripping sexism. In fact, I can't even.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:00PM
You don't have to get behind new anti-SWATing laws, it's already illegal and there's a number of additional charges that can be tacked on. I've read somewhere it could be argued it's attempted murder given how wrong things can go when a bunch of men with assault rifles kick in your door at 3:00 AM.
I agree with you on the sexism thing. "Think of the women" is the new "Think of the children". When someone tacks "of women", on to anything, as in "protection from online harassment ... of women", you can pretty well guarantee the intention is not to "protect women". It's unnecessary and only there to elicit an emotional response. Any "protection" being offered should be afforded to everyone not just people of a specific sex, gender or race. So when I see them creating laws to offer advantages to specific parties I know the intent is to provide a cover that they can attack any opposition with. Now if opponents disagree, or even agree but just point out issues, they must be misogynists.
I think people have caught on to this though and are starting to push back against it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:23PM
You don't have to get behind new anti-SWATing laws, it's already illegal and there's a number of additional charges that can be tacked on.
Yeah, we should totally oppose all those sweeping new powers she is proposing.
That’s why I have asked my colleagues in Congress to join me in calling on the Department of Justice to intensify their efforts to investigate and prosecute the federal laws that criminalize the worst of this behavior. The federal government is not responsible for policing the Internet, but it is responsible for protecting the women who are being threatened with rape and murder in violation of existing federal law.
Oh wait...
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:50PM
I'll see you're quote with the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act [google.com] from Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:03PM
Clearly we were talking about Kurenai's The Hill article. But yes, there is a new bill on the table.
Using your handy link, show me where in that bill a specific sex, gender or race is even mentioned. Let alone being a requirement for hoax calls to emergency services to be punishable.
Since you claim to ... see them creating laws to offer advantages to specific parties....It should be easy to find the relevant quote, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:12PM
I did not see anything obviously sexist in that op-ed.
It would have been nice to see references for the quite specific stats she gives though.
It is my understanding that women do feel disproportionately threatened in many everyday situations.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:18PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fishybell on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:29PM
You're right, but it turns out being disproportionately threatened is what's happening. I don't see anyone saying swatting attacks are pointed at women more than men, but rather women are constantly harassed by men, mostly online. Offline, men can still be horrible, but their anonymity is less, so there is an amount of discretion. If you want even the slightest bit of evidence, ask any woman -- any woman -- then ask the same question to men and compare.
Also, if you bother listening to their argument you see that it's not couched as a "let's protect women," but rather "let's stop harassment." Your free speech ends at someone else's safety.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:50PM
Also, if you bother listening to their argument you see that it's not couched as a "let's protect women," but rather "let's stop harassment."
...of women.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:17PM
women are constantly harassed by certain assholes
By all means, banhammer those assholes and make generous use of the ignore button.
If you want even the slightest bit of evidence, ask any woman -- any woman
Maybe I just haven't run into this massive conspiracy by all men to harass women because I don't voice chat with strangers, don't have every last detail of my life posted up on MyFace, don't play “Cock of Duty,” don't, say, go on about the details of my fucking sex life over the general chat in Diablo III and talk about wanting a boyfriend (god that person was annoying), I could go on.
Many times, the victim is guilty not for the harassment she receives but of being a complete moron.
Have I been griefed? Yeah. I doubt it was because of my gender.
Either get rid of this double standard, or hell, why not just go back to antebellum Southern gender roles.
Offline, blacks can still be horrible, but their anonymity is less, so there is an amount of discretion. If you want even the slightest bit of evidence, ask any white person -- any white person -- then ask the same question to blacks and compare.
I'm not sure I did that right, but close enough.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:32PM
Maybe I just haven't run into this massive conspiracy by all men to harass women...
First off, "All Men" is a strawman.
I guess you don't consider all that "gaslighting" and "cycles of hate" to be harassment... [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:45PM
He certainly is a strawman!
However, I've been him before, multiple times. When it's an individual who is a sexist asshole who is dead set on holding me accountable for things I have not done, then it's an individual who's a sexist asshole, and I will strive to write them off instead of dragging feminists and lesbians through the mud because of a few bad apples. When it's official policy, then we have a problem.
It has everything to do with the cycle of hatred. I consider it harassment when I'm being told to my face that I don't think women should program. I consider it harassment when I'm held accountable for rape and forced to attend a rape culture presentation. There may be rape cultures where women are required to also attend those presentations, but not at Grand Valley State University.
Why should I consider it anything else than sexism when somebody is trying to hold me accountable for something, solely based on my assigned gender at birth?
Maybe you've never had your feet personally or as part of a sexist policy held to the fire because somebody wanted to burn that strawman. Or maybe you're a big man who's ok with it when weak little girls call him a rapist and sexist and hold him accountable for the actions of others, because you'll make sure to keep those girls safe and sound from the rapists and sexists out there.
Or were you honestly trying to assert that discrimination never happens to people assigned the male gender at birth? Do you honestly think I'm just making this shit up?
Whatever. Written off with one proviso: if I ever have to sit through a “harassment culture” presentation because of my legal gender, I'll do what I should have done back in college and start a lawsuit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:41AM
> Posting from bizarro world.
You certainly got that right. Man it sucks to see mental illness up close. It makes me want to recoil because you express it so hatefully, it is hard to have compassion for that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:32PM
Bad form to replying twice, I know. Forgot to throw this in.
Also, if you bother listening to their argument you see that it's not couched as a "let's protect women," but rather "let's stop harassment."
I did listen to the rep's argument. I concluded that they're not concerned about male victims of SWATing. This has the same problem of #blacklivesmatter. Things could have been simple. “Let's stop harassment!” I would be cheering this rep on, but instead she had to make the issue a matter of gender. All she is doing is appealing to a sexist double standard we have where we tell men to man up and grow a pair, but everything is completely different for women.
To go full retard: genital mutilation. Nuff said. Somebody will knee jerk and prove both my point and their profound ignorance.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:41PM
You DO understand that "black lives matter" does not mean "no other lives do though, right?"
The common counter "all lives matter" is a tautology; true but vacuous. All houses should be hosed down if they are on fire, too, but only an idiot would respond to a fire alarm by dousing a house in the next state because "all houses matter." See how that works?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:03PM
Crap. I was afraid I was putting my foot in my mouth there.
Sure, in set theory that's good and all. I'm sure that nobody is saying white lives don't matter, just as this rep is not saying male SWATing victims don't matter. However, the construction is exclusionary and divisive. It also demonstrates that Clark is really not concerned about male SWATing victims, but we'll never hear her actually own up to that. Men do not exist in her world outside of incidents of a man doing something bad to a woman. She doesn't mean any harm, but she also doesn't care what men to do each other, and if a woman does something to a man, “he had it coming.”
I would compare her to a racist white person who never says anything overtly racist, but black people don't exist in their world except when a black person does something bad to a white person. These kinds of racists are fine with being oblivious to the larger problems, and if it's a black person attacking a black person, meh, that's just how black people are.
Here's my chain of thought:
1. Is the rep a sexist asshole? Yes
2. Does this affect me? No, because I do not SWAT or harass people on the internet. Well, except MikeeUSA, but it's all in good fun.
I mean, they can pass a bazillion laws about SWATing women and I'll never be affected. Then as we start going into harassment territory and it gets murky. Nobody knows exactly what harassment is. Stating a difference of opinion could be harassment. Over on the other site, somebody became convinced I regularly pressure women into having sex with me after being triggered by “somebody disagrees with me about rape cultures.” I don't even date women! Then the next step after the media has thoroughly established that all men are sexual harassers chasing women off the internet may be to go full “harassment culture.” Let's use those questions again as concerns rape cultures:
1. Is the presenter a sexist asshole? Yes
2. Does this affect me? Yes, because it does not matter whether or not I rape people. At a minimum, it has wasted an hour or two of my time and made it very clear to me that I am in a hostile environment where, if I anger the wrong woman, all it takes is an accusation, and the burden of proof that I did not have sex with her is on me simply because of my assigned gender. Oh well. Pick a better college next time and/or file a gender discrimination lawsuit if there's no way to avoid rape cultures.
They are not saying that male rape victims do not matter. What they are saying is that if you were assigned the male gender at birth, “We want you to understand that we will be openly hostile towards you and that the 2 hours of your time we wasted do not matter.”
Now, college campuses are kind of “special.” That's not news. This is a bit out there into tinfoil hat land, but what I do not want is to try to connect to the internet one day and be required to sit through an hour or two presentation about “harassment culture” before I can change my legal gender and never worry about official sanctioned sexism again.
Finally, to come back around to #blacklivesmatter (because they do!):
1. Is the presenter a racist asshole? No. And people are being murdered by the police because they have the wrong skin color.
2. Does this affect me? Not likely, although Bernie Sanders might be slightly irritated with them. On the other hand, I worry about black people I know.
There's also the problem that I cannot tell you objectively what is and is not harassment. I just know it when I see it. Men also frequently fail to report harassment (and rape/domestic violence/etc). So already our numbers are hopelessly tainted. We're talking about the problem in terms of sexist language. “Men” are doing things to “women!” On top of questionable data, the unspoken assumption is that none of these harassers could possibly be women.
We can state this without using sexist language. Anonymous assholes may or may not display asshole behavior disproportionately towards women. Now it no longer affects me, since I am not an asshole. (Well, that might be debatable, but whatever.)
However, I can objectively tell you when a SWATing occurs. Does nobody have the numbers and demographic breakdowns? We need at least four categories and male and female numbers for each: number of SWAT attempts per year (SWAT team/police dispatched, median amount of property damage during a successful SWAT, median number of injured parties per attempt, median number of fatalities per attempt.
So after analysis I suppose I do go too far by throwing #blacklivesmatter out there. I did not mean to imply #blacklivesmatter is bigoted like Katherine Clark apparently is!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @08:30PM
The correct analogy would be "blue houses matter", not "burning houses matter".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:28PM
> You DO understand that "black lives matter" does not mean "no other lives do though, right?"
There is a silent "too" at the end of "black lives matter" that racists can't hear.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:45PM
I did listen to the rep's argument. I concluded that they're not concerned about male victims of SWATing.
Clearly you did not. In both of the linked articles gender is never even mentioned.
As such, her bill uses broad-yet-specific language to punish anyone who "uses a telecommunications system, the mails, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly transmit false or misleading information indicating that conduct has taken, is taking, or will take place that may reasonably be believed to constitute a violation of any State or Federal criminal law, or endanger public health or safety."
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @10:00PM
Ok, point taken. I leaped to the conclusion that this was just yet another sexist law/policy. The rep may be sexist. Doesn't affect me as long as the law isn't sexist so we're good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:39PM
And a woman's anonymity is usually greater online as well, so it balances out. What the harassment they speak of is is speech, which should never be forbidden. If it was physical harassment, that would be different, but merely feeling threatened or offended by someone's speech is no grounds to punish them. This is one reason why I support tools that allow for strong anonymity: To combat draconian government restrictions on speech. This applies no matter what the type of speech is.
Your free speech ends at someone else's safety.
That makes no sense. Someone else is not endangered by mere speech, as speech cannot cause physical harm unless it is so loud as to be capable of damaging someone's hearing. You must be referring to a very useless and subjective definition of "safety", which is a type of "safety" that isn't worth protecting.
And nowhere in the first amendment does it even remotely imply that your free speech ends at someone else's "safety". I guess "shall make no law" means nothing at all.
Go fuck yourself, and drown in the futility of trying to hunt down people who said things that are considered threatening or offensive.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:58PM
That makes no sense. Someone else is not endangered by mere speech, as speech cannot cause physical harm unless it is so loud as to be capable of damaging someone's hearing. You must be referring to a very useless and subjective definition of "safety", which is a type of "safety" that isn't worth protecting.
And nowhere in the first amendment does it even remotely imply that your free speech ends at someone else's "safety". I guess "shall make no law" means nothing at all.
Go fuck yourself, and drown in the futility of trying to hunt down people who said things that are considered threatening or offensive.
I would argue that "doxxing" and "swatting" probably are not protected speech.
Doxxing may be protected speech, unless and until that information is used to commit criminal acts. Assuming it can be proven that the information taken from a specific act of doxxing provided the means for another to commit a criminal act, that's conspiracy.
Swatting, on the other hand, is definitely not protected speech under the First Amendment. I imagine that in many places, if someone is killed as a result of a swatting incident, the 'swatter' could be charged with felony murder [wikipedia.org]. Conceivably, a doxxer could also be charged similarly if conspiracy can be proved.
N.B.: IANAL
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:21AM
but rather women are constantly harassed by men, mostly online
You don't know that. The harasser could be pretending to be a man but is actually a fish or a women or perhaps a mermaid. You just don't know, just like you don't know if the person being harassed is a women. I've been both sexes online. It's simple and you'd have no way to validate what I'd say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:31PM
The sexism comes from her trying to create laws that only pertain to protecting women, or at least that she's using "women" as reasoning for her law.
Feel is the operative word here. There are certain types of harassment women tend to receive more of online, "sexual" (I'm not sure what constitutes sexual harassment online, sexy looking words? dick pics? cheesy pickup lines?) and stalkers, but overall men are more often targets and receive more serious threats. source [pewinternet.org].
And I hate playing this game because it shouldn't matter who has it worse, it should just be dealt with if that's possible or left alone, but "women are being harassed" is used to justify absurd overreactions to situations people would otherwise not think twice about upon realizing shit's hard for everyone regardless of their gender. Trolls have always existed on the internet, hell even in real life, there's nothing you can do about them though without harming what makes the internet great for everyone.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:35PM
The sexism comes from her trying to create laws that only pertain to protecting women,
Here is the actual bill. [google.com]
Please show me where it says it only applies to women.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:58PM
So wait a second.
A minute ago you commented that there was no changes to legislation using a cherry picked quote of her saying she only wants to enforce existing powers [soylentnews.org], but you knew about the bill. Now you're claiming that because there's no language in the bill specifically identifying gender that she's not using "sexism against women" to try and push the bill she's introduced.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @11:28PM
Hence why she's a sexist. If she's merely using sexism to sell the bill, whatever. Otherwise nothing to see here. From Ars:
But the federal government's lack of specific anti-swatting rules hasn't helped, which is why Representative Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) proposed the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act on Wednesday.
"While federal law prohibits using the telecommunications system to falsely report a bomb threat hoax or a terrorist attack, falsely reporting other emergency situations is not currently prohibited," Clark wrote in her announcement of the bill. As such, her bill uses broad-yet-specific language to punish anyone who "uses a telecommunications system, the mails, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly transmit false or misleading information indicating that conduct has taken, is taking, or will take place that may reasonably be believed to constitute a violation of any State or Federal criminal law, or endanger public health or safety."
More action is needed at the state levels since this bill only covers interstate SWATing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:47PM
You must be new here. This site, and the green one, are to rights of video gamers and their makers to create/enjoy whatever scenario they please, as the NRA is to the rights of gun owners. That is, they'll see huge potential threats even when they're not there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:35PM
It's hilarious that people are so butthurt they credit, sorry "blame", "gamers" for protecting speech online. Keep raging away it doesn't change, by your own admission, that you're an angry minority of people.
The majority, "gamers" or not, aren't going to let you wreck free speech so cry a little harder.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:36PM
Pretty sure placing fake calls to emergency services is not protected speech...
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @05:01PM
The thing that's sexist here is that she completely ignores male victims of SWATing. Gender did not need to come into play here. Now we need to figure out who is a woman and who isn't. There be dragons.
Compare and contrast the tone of the article I linked above to this one [fbi.gov]. (As the article suggests, Vanderhoth is correct that SWATing is already illegal.) Now what we're really missing if we're going to make this a matter of gender are some numbers. I want to know how often the target of the SWATing is male or female. Then I want to know how often people who wind up murdered by the police after being SWATed are male or female.
I have a feeling that would paint a different story. I'd expect it'd be like the numbers for attempted suicide and completed suicide. Yeah, women make more suicide attempts, but men die far more often from suicide. I did some quick Googling, but I didn't find anything useful in the first few hits.
It is my understanding that women do feel disproportionately threatened in many everyday situations.
It's not my problem if other women think there are rapists around every corner. I somehow get through my day without being worried about that, and I'm shorter and less capable of defending myself than many women. Male privilege goes out the window, because I've determined at this point that pretty much anybody who doesn't know me will gender me female even if I'm presenting as male. No complaints here!
Besides, we're talking about the internet. I've never encountered this widespread internet harassment that's supposed to affect every last woman online, not once. I have seen a lot of shitlords like Brianna Wu get what's coming to them.
If I walk to certain neighborhoods and start promoting white supremacist views and saying that all blacks are violent criminals who haven't been caught in the act yet, I can expect on a long enough time scale of doing that somebody might get violent with me or threaten me. I'm sure I'd be harassed out of the neighborhood and even followed back to my house where I'd face further harassment. I would have to demand a law to specifically target harassment of whites! That's not racist at all, right?!
Being a woman doesn't preclude being an asshole, and I can tell you I've run into a lot of asshole women online and IRL. I concede a point to TERFs: no, I'll never understand what being coddled and privileged from day one is like. When I was harassed, I was told to stop being a crybaby and grow a pair, you sissy. So, my only advice to these women who are constantly feeling threatened by daily life: stop being a crybaby and grow a pair, you sissy. There. Gender equality!
(Oh, and the rest of us don't need white knights looking out for us, tyvm.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday February 04 2016, @06:52PM
TERFs are fucking nuts. TERF:feminism::Westboro:Christianity. I have been called "traitor to the lesbian race" (stop and think about that one a moment...) because I dare to support trans rights and think rape is wrong no matter who it happens to.
Ignore them. They are loud but small, and dumber than a snowblower in the Arctic.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday February 04 2016, @11:54PM
Mhmm. They also have some choice words for trans men along similar lines. The mistake I made was not listening to you and others who have been telling me this for years. Turns out pretty much everybody in Michigan is insane and has latched on to extremist views of one nature or another. TERF, militia movement, white supremacism (closely related to militia) are the ones that stand out the most. Hop over to the big city, and everything is different.
Being this site, I have to nitpick your analogy. I'd say TERF:feminism::Christian Identity [wikipedia.org]:Christianity. The Westboro church is just a bunch of lawyers being assholes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @07:29PM
After reading the article you linked, I'm curious. Which part was sexist?
Granted, the congressperson did focus on harassment against women, but I saw nothing that even approached sexism. She doesn't even imply, let alone state that 'men' are the problem.
Perhaps I'm just thick, so please do explain.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:37AM
> What I can't get behind is her dripping sexism. In fact, I can't even.
Really? That article is dripping with sexism? Are you also the kind of person who can't distinguish between talking about racism and being racist? Because that article is a pretty straight-forward non-inflammatory description of the experiences of many women online.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:11PM
but given I know some backstory with this women and who she runs with, I find this to be a little too convenient and similar to tactics some of her friends have used.
Ooh! Please do share! I love it when people dish!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 05 2016, @04:33AM
> given I know some backstory with this women and who she runs with,
How about you share this backstory rather than act like the holy keeper of knowledge making you an unassiable expert on the topic?
Because your posting history means *I* know your backstory and the people you run with. And the amount of dissembling on this topic you've done is as bad as any politician. So I don't think any of us should take you at your word.
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 04 2016, @12:35PM
i lol'd
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday February 04 2016, @03:49PM
Maybe if the police weren't stomping around like a frigging military force at war with the citizens they are ostensibly there to protect this swatting thing wouldn't be an issue.
Note that I do not condone hoax emergency calls as a means of protesting this, or of protesting anything else for that matter.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday February 04 2016, @04:26PM
I agree, but
The fact that you actually have to tack this on to that statement, or be accused of supporting that action, is just sad.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday February 04 2016, @09:41PM
Does somebody (Vanderhoth [soylentnews.org]? Kurenai [soylentnews.org]?) think that being against swatting is sexism unless men are considered to be the aggrieved parties?
I'm male, and I'm against swatting -- regardless of the rhetoric or political bias espoused by others who are also against swatting.
Whether or not new legislation is required, I won't hazard a guess -- I'm not a criminal lawyer.
In any case, since you appear to have some axe to grind with certain folks (apparently ~50% of the population), you attack them for attempting to bring attention to a problem.
Rather than shooting the messenger, why not be constructive? Maybe make suggestions about how to de-militarize the police or a relevant discussion of the technological issues (VOIP spoofing, poorly trained police dispatchers, etc.)?
I don't know, it seems like you're attempting to advance a specific agenda, rather than engage in honest discourse about a serious topic. Gee, that sounds like what you accuse others of doing. Funny that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 05 2016, @03:28AM
To answer the question, I stand against all sexism. IANAL, but it appears the rep has found some loopholes and seeks to close them with this bill. I would like to state that in the end, I am 100% in support of the bill as written.
My axe to grind is with sexists. I have no idea if that comprises ~50% of the population, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If 50% of the population are sexists, then I oppose them. My agenda is the end of sexism. No more bullshit from TERFs, no more bullshit from the MRAs when they're bullshitting (they have some valid points).
This legislation, it turns out, may be required. Additional action at the state level is also required, since this bill is only an interstate measure. I'm sorry I leaped to the conclusion that because this bill is sponsored by a sexist that the bill itself is sexist.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 05 2016, @03:36AM
I have no idea if that comprises ~50% of the population, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
I should have gone for 51% since that's what you were referencing. I honestly have no idea. For Michigan, it's probably more like 90%.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 05 2016, @03:53AM
This legislation, it turns out, may be required. Additional action at the state level is also required, since this bill is only an interstate measure.
Truth be told, it doesn't matter to me whether or not you support such a bill or not. Actually, it doesn't really matter if *I* support such a bill. We're just little people to be stepped on by the powers-that-be.
My objection was to your (and others -- who were much harsher than you) advancing an anti-feminist agenda in an article that has exactly zero to do with feminism. That smacks of bigotry, IMHO.
Granted, when there are folks like these [wordpress.com], I can understand why some folks are up in arms about their rhetoric.
However, the goal of creating a society of equals (equal in terms of opportunity, treatment in society and under the law, not some sort of Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org]-esque dystopia) are, IMNSHO laudable. And while I strongly support freedom of expression (as must be obvious from many, many other postings here [soylentnews.org]), that freedom also extends to speaking up when others use their freedom to demonize or misrepresent people.
I have no issue with people who have strong beliefs and want to express them. However, when someone deliberately misrepresents the facts, or casts vague and unspecified aspersions on people based on their purported associations (I'm looking at you Vanderhoth [soylentnews.org]) with folks who do unspecified "things," without attribution or supporting facts, I think it's appropriate to be very skeptical.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 05 2016, @03:59AM
This woman describes [youtube.com] my typical experience with Michiganders who claim to be representative of the feminist movement. TERF assholes had brainwashed me. I'm sorry.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 05 2016, @04:17AM
You won't forgive me, though, will you? I dared challenge your cisfemale hunnies to prove to me that they weren't sexist! What a big fucking asshole I've been! After 25+ years of facing transphobia and misandry, trying to come to grips with my circumcision pain, after things I built were destroyed because you needed your fucking CISgendered programmer, you say I have no right to be skeptical of cisgendered women who want to persecute me! I am fucking done with it! Death to all cisgendered people. It'll come when martial law is declared after the coronation of Clinton, roughly around 2019. There will be no general election in 2020.
I don't need to be a fucking time traveler to figure that out.
You know what? I don't give a shit about this world because of the hatred I've faced. Launch the nukes now for all I care. I have raped NOBODY! I have SWATed NOBODY! YET YOU HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE FOR THESE CRIMES! I WILL NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS YET AGAIN! Yet you want to hold me accountable as an "all men!" Got to hell, preferably propelled by nuclear fire.
I am NOT sorry. Die in nuclear fire. At least you'll protect the hunnies!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Friday February 05 2016, @04:37AM
Just one moment, Kurenai. I did none of the things you suggest. Nor have I accused you of *anything* other than going way off-topic.
I was just watching the link you posted, none of which was any surprise to me. Otherwise I would have finished this post before you had a chance to go off on your rant.
Had you followed the link [wordpress.com] that I posted in my initial reply, you'd see that I understand that there are folks out there who are way off the reservation WRT equality on the self-proclaimed "radical feminist" side (which, I assert is a misnomer, as what those folks are promoting isn't feminism at all, just bigotry).
At the same time, I have no truck with those who espouse their own bigotry, using the bigotry of those with whom they disagree as a justification.
I don't need, nor did I request an apology from you. Nonetheless, I do accept it, even if it wasn't necessary. I will say that your apology did make me think that you understood my point. I'm still pretty sure that you did, but you appear to have wounds and scars which, while they have nothing to do with me, cause you to lash out.
As my sister used to say, "hurt people hurt people." I believe that to be true as well. As such, I understand your anger. I'll only point out that I had nothing to do with anything negative that has ever befallen you. Regardless, I am sorry that you've had to endure such pain. I won't take that apology back either.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday February 05 2016, @01:57PM
Ok, I'm going to explain myself, I honestly think you're just misunderstanding my position.
I am not anti-feminist, I don't have a problem with feminism as it's stated "for equality". Under that premise I consider myself a feminist. What I do have a problem with are people who pretend "for equality" means demonizing men and giving special treatment to women or using "women are weak" as an excuse to push their personal agendas. I have just as much of a problem with shit head MRA and PUA douche bags. I'm firmly in the middle of all of this "culture war" shit that's going on and I don't apprecate being pushed one way or the other which is becoming increasingly difficult as any opinion either gets you dismissed as a sexists/racists/misogynists/homphobe/trasphobe/all of the above or an SJW. Both sides have made it impossible to have an opinion that just moderately in the middle. Nothing is black and white, I can share some opinions with feminist and some opinions with anti-feminist (which isn't automatically bad) and some opinions shard with both and some opinions shard with neither.
Clark sided with Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Quinn got to whine to the UN with Anita Sarkeesian about people calling them liars online in an effort to have the UN strong arm governments into making special rules to prevent people from criticising them. Quinn, Wu and Sarkeesian are notorious trolls, liars, con artists and abusers. Clark is using her political position to push ideas that could lead to government censorship on the net in the name of protecting women from online harassment. So no, it's not feminism I have a problem with, it's with some people who just happen to call themselves feminist. It's two separate things, and I suspect they only call themselves feminist because then criticising them is easy to construe as criticising feminism and anti-feminist which is anti-women which is misogyny by extension. It's a dishonest roundabout way of dismissing and attacking critics rather than answering the criticism.
So, anti-feminist. Anti-feminist is not the same thing as anti-women, it doesn't mean you're automatically a bad person or misogynists that doesn't believe in equality. There's been a huge push lately by "third-wave" or "tumblr" feminist that say they just believe in equality, but then go around demonizing anyone that doesn't share their opinions or "listen and believe" 100%. I completely understand people have a problem with that. Some people have mistaken these faux feminist ideologies for what feminism is actually about. They aren't against equality they're against hypocrisy, lies and agenda pushing. What they see are some extremist trouble makers and a huge following of sheep that will do what they're told unquestionably and push whatever bullshit the extremist tell them too and it's hard for them to separate out those assholes from the feminist movement as a whole. And it's not just men coming to this conclusion [twitter.com]
Be careful of who you accuse of pushing anti-feminist agendas. Pushing people into boxes is a good way to fill those boxes up and you'll pretty soon find there's way more people in the box against you than outside of the box with you. for example, I only started associating with GamerGate because people told me that's what I was when I started asking questions, despite being staunchly hardcore feminist before. Being pushed into that box lead me to associate and talk to people I likely wouldn't have before which lead me to rethink and sympathize with what some of those people I blindly hated before were saying. It's become a running joke that GamerGhazi / anti-Gamers have become the best recruiters because they're loud, arrogant and hateful people who accuse everyone that's remotely on the line of being "Gators", which is how KotakuInAction ended up with 56,000+ subscribers and GamerGhazi barely has 9,000.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday February 05 2016, @02:29PM
Fair enough. Finally a reasoned argument from you.
My issue with the way you addressed this thread has zero to do with what you might believe or disbelieve.
Rather, I took issue with your vacuous accusations [soylentnews.org] and misrepresentations of fact [soylentnews.org].
If you believe in your arguments and want to be taken seriously, then you might consider making honest arguments instead of using innuendo and guilt by association. Or not. I'm not one to tell people what they should or shouldn't say.
Also, I found your interjection of "sexism" into this thread to be wildly off-topic and completely irrelevant. Even so, I didn't downmod you for it. In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and reviewed the available information before disagreeing with you in a comment.
Only folks who have no self-respect would downmod those they disagree with, rather than making their own arguments in favor of their position. Wouldn't you agree?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Friday February 05 2016, @04:07PM
I'm glad we can come to an understanding and I'm legitimately sorry that I didn't explain my position as articulately as I should have. The injection of "sexism" was primarily because everything I've seen from Clark for the last 6 months or so has been from a perspective that she's pushing censorship because women need to be protected. i.e you shouldn't be allowed to disagree with or criticize some awful people because they're female.
And it legitimately feels like any opposition to that position is met with accusations and personal attacks rather than any legitimate arguments.
I'm not misrepresenting facts [soylentnews.org] in this comment, it's my opinion based on my observations and interpretation of data I sourced.
I'm not sure where you come up with this or why you're injecting it here. Am I not here explaining my position?
People are free to use mod points however they want. What does it matter how a comment is modded? Mod points aren't worth money, they don't add to the discussion, they aren't some magical measure of who's right or who's wrong and they don't offer insight beyond other people agreeing or disagreeing and vaguely why the agree or disagree. Why are people so obsessed with how many strangers on the internet care about what they say? When people complain to me about how others have modded their comments to me that says they have way too large an ego and can't stand the fact that someone doesn't share their opinions. If that's what you care about you're in the wrong place. I'm here for the discussion not to hear my opinions echoed back at me or to echo other's opinions back at them. I want people to disagree with me and offer alternative positions, opinions and information. That's the whole point of discussion, otherwise we live in a hugbox and there's no point in saying anything.
You know who has no self-respect? People who care how others mod them. If you're that concerned with what others think of you, you have a serious issue with self-respect and self-esteem. I'm not here seeking validation, I'm here to have my views challenged. It's the internet, people aren't always going to agree.
I'm going to be very clear, I have one account here. I get 5 mod points a day just like everyone else (I assume) and I'll spend them however I see fit. If I think someone's making a good point or providing good information to back up their points, I'll mark their post as up insightful or informative, even if I'd almost never agree with that person on any other topic. If I think someone's being dishonest, making a personal attack or trying to stir up shit, I'll mod them down as flamebait or troll, even if they're someone I'd almost always agree with on any other topic.
I rarely agree and have actually had serious differences of opinions with The Mighty Buzzard and Hairyfeet and Ethanol-fueled in the past and kurenai.tsubasa has said some things I'm really uncomfortable with, but I see people attack and belittle them all the time. Then I see people go around and try to shame others on how they spend mod points in an attempt to make certain people feel isolated or feel bad for occasionally agreeing or disagreeing. That doesn't add to the discussion, it's an attempt to chase people with different views away. We're suppose to be adults here. It's not a hugbox and it's not a safe space, this is a discussion forum and everyone's opinion is relevant whether their opinions are accurate or not and regardless of how their comments are modded.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:19AM
I'm not misrepresenting facts in this comment, it's my opinion based on my observations and interpretation of data I sourced.
Fair enough. However, without any specifics or the "data" you sourced, that's certainly the impression I got.
People are free to use mod points however they want. What does it matter how a comment is modded?
You're quite correct in your first point. As to your second point, the value in the moderation system is in raising quality comments to be more visible. This encourages a higher quality of discourse. I think the best part of the moderation system is that as a group we tend to promote quality arguments and/or information positively impacting the discussion at hand.
You may not think that important, but I prefer to see decent argument and quality information highligted, rather than lost amidst poorly constructed or vacuous arguments. As for myself, I always read at -1, but many only read comments at +2 or perhaps higher for just that reason.
While some (as I mentioned) may use their mod points to aggressively promote their own ideas or denigrate those with which they disagree, AFAICT the user base as a whole addresses that potential issue pretty well.
You know who has no self-respect? People who care how others mod them. If you're that concerned with what others think of you, you have a serious issue with self-respect and self-esteem. I'm not here seeking validation, I'm here to have my views challenged. It's the internet, people aren't always going to agree.
I may be mistaken, but it seems that makes you a little angry. Do you feel you're being accused? Is there something in the reasonably innocent question I asked that makes you uncomfortable?
I don't seek validation for my arguments either. As I've stated many times, I prefer to have honest discussion among people who may agree or disagree. I find that elevates the level of argument and challenges us all to examine our own points of view. This is extremely healthy and promotes quality ideas. It can also enhance our ability to express ourselves and allow us to hone (or modify) our own views and arguments.
I rarely agree and have actually had serious differences of opinions with The Mighty Buzzard and Hairyfeet and Ethanol-fueled in the past and kurenai.tsubasa has said some things I'm really uncomfortable with, but I see people attack and belittle them all the time.
The same is true for me (as you can clearly tell from my posting history [soylentnews.org]. While I vigorously engage those folks (and many others, yourself included) in debate about topics of interest to me, I shy away from ad hominem or similarly personal attacks. However, when I feel that an argument is lacking rigor, or doesn't use the best (or sometimes any at all) evidence to back it up, I don't hold back. Nor is that likely to change.
I too have just the one account. That's all I need -- as my beliefs are mine and I happily own them. As for moderation, I generally only mod folks up for quality comments -- I reserve any downmods for obvious trolls and spammy off-topic crap, although I often don't even bother and ignore those. That's my philosophy WRT moderation and I don't expect or insist that anyone act similarly. At the same time, if I notice a pattern WRT that, I may mention that in passing (as I did -- and you took some exception to, although I'm still not sure why that's such a sore spot for you).
In truth, I'm glad SN exists and with few exceptions (MikeeUSA or whoever it is that posts the AC trolls about marrying prepubescent girls) am grateful for all the members of the community we're building here. And even though I consider MikeeUSA to be a trollish jerk, I'm almost glad he's around too, if only to remind us that there are really unpleasant folks out there. In my view, no one should be silenced or pressured to modulate their views to conform to the predilections of others.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr