I am afraid, it is all part and parcel of same beliefs driving feminism.

There are a lot of people out there who think they have some sort of "constitutional " right to "not" be offended, and to shut down anything they find offensive, or think might offend someone of a "victimized class"

How is she not aware of The Internet mob? I'm sorry but she grew up on the Internet. It's like going Saudi Arabia, drinking beer in public,and getting punished in an obscene way.

There is only one guy I know who escaped The Internet mob (4chan specifically, the most dangerous fucks of all): TheAmazingAtheist. Basically a video of him shoving a banana up his ass, covering himself in chocoltae syrup surfaced and his response was

"Yup I did it because it turns me on, it's part of my sexuality and I'm not ashamed of it"

They left him alone after that because he had no real reaction.

Come on there have been GOVERNMENT officials who piss off the Internet and their SS numbers, private emails, etc are published.

I do not condone this, think the girl has received enough punishment but I also don't go around tempting rabid dogs.

It's an aspect of the Internet and internet culture I really dislike.

We are worried and rightfully so of the NSA tracking us everywhere, but often it's the shit we post to shame others that comes back and gets us for as long as search engines reign.

I am hopeful it will become part of social etiquette that unless you were part of the party, you just don't endless retweet and reshare these sorts of videos.

She's getting death threats, we've seen other people commit suicide.

BUT FUCKING JEZEBEL IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. GAWKER AND JEZEBEL ARE THE PROBLEM.

Jezebel and Gawker pull this shit all of the time, including Jezebel doxing idiot high schoolers that tweeted racist shit about Obama after his reelection and went so far as to report them to school authorities.

http://jezebel.com/5958993/racist-teens-forced-to-answer-for-tweets-about-the-nigger-president

Oh, and note the URL that includes the n word that was absolutely not required but it's not racism when Jezebel does it.

Laura Beck and her gang at Jezebel can get off their high horses and go fuck themselves. After almost any event it's pretty damn trivial to find idiots behaving like idiots on the net.

Jezebel thinks its fine to laugh at them, act outraged by them, dox them, until it's a woman receiving a bullshit internet rape threat and then Jezebel is all SMASH PATRIARCHY.

Anyway, I think these viral name and shame campaigns are bullshit. Just because there is an internet doesn't mean you have to spread viral crap.

Actually, I thought Jezebel was pretty even-handed in this case. (And this is no endorsement, by the way; I referred specifically to this case alone.)

They hardly went "SMASH PATRIARCHY!" on the establishment. They called it what it was. Lynch (a name which sounds like terrible irony right now) did something in really poor taste, and these folks that are threatening to rape/torture/murder her are doing something even worse.

What happened to simply snubbing someone when they cross the line? Or, if this person is a friend or if you're just feeling particularly gracious, simply telling them that their actions were terribly hurtful to a lot of people. And perhaps sharing the accounts of those who lost loved one to underscore the point. This would be making appealing to her empathy, which she probably has, and would do a lot more toward helping this young woman see where she messed up.

I doubt she intended to provoke this kind of response. She was probably just going for "over the top." And to that end, she succeeded. And she has a lot of company, most of whom are much older and should know better.

She's not the first well-meaning person to do something inconceivably dumb. She won't be the last. But those who are threatening her with harm are worse, yet they somehow imagine that their response is justified.

It occurs to me that if she actually dressed up as a marathoner and took off the fake wounds, and presented her costume as a tribute to the Boston marathoners, she'd be accolades instead of death threats.

I don't think this is limited to sites like Gawker and Jezebel. I made a fairly mild observation out here at the time of the Boston bombing (that was in no way mocking of the victims or the situation) and a another frequent poster went street rat crazy and wished the most vulgar rape scenario on me that you can imagine. I won't embarrass her by naming her, but it was really over the top and shocking beyond the base vulgarity of her response. So this over reaction is just common to the Internet. People, who are probably angry about other things in their lives, use it as an opportunity to blow off steam. I try to always remember that even with my identity hidden, these are still my words and I don't want anything that vulgar or nasty following me around.

Everyone's a hero on the internet. I'm sure they are more irate about something else already.

It was necessary to repost her name, wasn't it?

I agree that it's hypocritical for Jezebel to complain about this behavior when it's something that they encourage. The sick thing is that there is a whole network of sites that exist to stir up vendettas against private individuals, and they do if for profit.

Y'know, if you showed me that photo without telling me in advance about it, my first reaction would probably be, "Huh? What's that supposed to be?" Yeah, she had an ethical brain fart. Sometimes young adults do stupid stuff (been there...). It's in poor taste, but on the list of the world's felonies and misdomeanors, this is waaay down.

I'll tell you what the real problem here is: narcissists and borderlines who think that the entire Internet is their personal captive audience. It's the perfect setup for them: they get their jollies being abusive towards random strangers, and simultaneously pat themselves on the back that they're the world's humanitarians. I was thinking about this over the weekend... none of my Facebook friends posts to the extent that they used to, and when they do, it's often cutesie reposts from poster sites instead of their own thoughts. And I think it's happening because people are afraid of what might happen if one of their posts gets into the hands of a slander artist. I see the possibility that it's going to wind up killing, or at least severely crippling, social media.

It's in poor taste, but I'd be more critical of her costuming skills than her judgment. Talk about phoning it in. How long did that take? Five minutes?

The year that the ValuJet plane crashed in the swamp, I saw a cadre of drag queens at Halloween staggering down in the street in stewardess uniforms, wearing zombie makeup and covered in seaweed. That took a bit more effort.

"Offensesensitivity"

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5099431

The idea that if you are offended, it must be a crime! with righteous indignation, and a side hysteria!

give me a frelling break. Anyone want to explain to me exactly what makes such a costume offensive? Though I agree with Kevin that this is phoning it in.

If you dress as The Joker, does that make it offensive? Of Freddie Krueger? Both abominations, and murderers.
"Oh, but they're fictional!"
Oh, yeah? You could also wear a Che Guevara or Josef Stalin outfit, with no question either, and who would point out the both were genocidal lunatics? That really existed, and really killed people.

"whull, but it's too soon, and... it's in bad taste!"
says you.

All the fallout of this is about brutally forcing a person to GET BACK IN LINE AND SHUT UP!

What our intrepid young person just learned is that there are plenty of people out there who feel no compunction at all for ruining your life if they can, JUST BECAUSE they FEEL like it.

The only stupid stuff I see in this is the reactions of everyone else, over something that is not their business, and far away.

Now, if an actual race survivor happened to see this... how many hops is Boston to Michigan? THE could say "I'm really upset that you would make light of a miserable situation."

And then, maybe she would say "I'm sorry" to the people who went through that, but that would be a personal thing.

She dressed as a Survivor. If you dress in fatigues and go as a soldier, are you making fun? If you dress as an FDNY firefighter covered in dust, are you making fun?

Some people see making light, while others see homage, and by our OWN reactions do we indicate if we wish to engage with a tragedy, or if we wish to simply not hear of it, and ignore it.

Nobody would think twice if you went as the Unsinkable Molly Brown, and she was quite a survivor, and a very interesting person.

All of this is surly misplaced rage.

SwissArmyD my understanding is that there is already lobbying for the DSM VI to include absence of offensesensitivity as an indication of sociopathy.

About three web site designs ago, Slate had an article written by two psychologists, that stated unequivocally, if you had a young son, who displayed an interest in guns of any kind, he should be immediately taken in for a psychiatric examination, because this was a clear indication, that he was probably a sociopath, and he would need help to overcome this fixation.

Speaking of the Internet mob and death threats over every dumb (or intelligent) thing:

A recent article by R. Todd Kelly makes clear that any woman who is openly sympathetic to men's rights activists - but not 100% - is often going to get threatened, at least, with MALE violence, and using her real name puts her even more at risk, naturally, so the effect is to silence all such women. Never mind those non-famous women who criticize MRAs in general.

That article covers a lot more ground than that, however:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/20/the-masculine-mystique-inside-the-men-s-rights-movement-mrm.html

Quote:

.....When I asked why she thought her milquetoast comments had triggered such an extreme reaction Watson replied “I think they heard exactly what they wanted to hear, not what I said, and so they believe I want men to be ‘destroyed.’” Watson says she finds irony in the fact that she is someone who actually supports most of the causes that fuel MRM passions. “I am someone who would gladly join them in the fight against issues like male domestic abuse victims or male circumcision, if only they weren’t such horrific people.”

Jaclyn Friedman did a good follow-up to that article - at the American Prospect. The title is "A Good Men’s Rights Movement Is Hard to Find."

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I think her costume is pretty funny. Lazy but funny. She didn't use enough blood and should have bound up one of legs as if it were blown off. Next year she should go as the World Trade Center Towers.

"A recent article by R. Todd Kelly makes clear that any woman who is openly sympathetic to men's rights activists - but not 100% - is often going to get threatened, at least, with MALE violence, and using her real name puts her even more at risk, naturally, so the effect is to silence all such women. Never mind those non-famous women who criticize MRAs in general."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/20/the-masculine-mystique-inside-the-men-s-rights-movement-mrm.html

The daily beast article by Kelly is really very good, though I am not sure we read the same article because it's pretty clear no one could ever accuse Rebecca Watson of being openly sympathetic to men's rights activists.

"Jaclyn Friedman did a good follow-up to that article - at the American Prospect. The title is "A Good Men’s Rights Movement Is Hard to Find.""

http://prospect.org/article/good-mens-rights-movement-hard-find

In contrast, the Jaclyn Friedman piece was based on lies and distortions, that are debunked in the comments to that article. (Though the prospect has a strange habit of truncating comments over time by letting them scroll off the bottom of the page)

A more interesting article is the followup piece Kelly published at Ordinary Gentlement:

ordinary-gentlemen DOT COM /blog/2013/10/20/take-two-red-pills-call-me-in-the-morning-the-sudden-and-surprising-rise-of-the-mens-rights-movement

(link mangled to avoid the spam filter)

Eh, I like it. Clever and gory, great Halloween costume. Could have used more gore.

"I am someone who would gladly join them in the fight against issues like male domestic abuse victims or male circumcision, if only they weren’t such horrific people."

I call bullshit. Allow me to translate Watson's statement, because it's the same as what comes from most feminists regard the MRM: "If you men would shut up and mind your station and let the smart women take care if it, we'd fix all of your problems. And if you're really good compliant boys we might flash you a nipple now and then, maybe."

http://prospect.org/article/good-mens-rights-movement-hard-find

In contrast, the Jaclyn Friedman piece was based on lies and distortions, that are debunked in the comments to that article.

Posted by: jerry at November 4, 2013 3:02 PM

It was no lie that W.F. Price chose to publish Ramzpaul's 2010 piece: "How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization." (Ramzpaul also made a 2010 Youtube video: "Repeal the 19th Amendment.")

Why would any respectable publisher/editor do such a thing? Why would Kelly call Price a "moderate"?

Lenona, I have to admit that despite being somewhat active as an MRM, I've never heard of W.F. Price. However, I've heard Wendy McElroy, who is certainly not a woman-hater, talk about the social effects, positive and negative, that resulted from the 19th Amendment. If you are implying that that subject must not be studied because it's politically incorrect to do so...

Lenona, I have to admit that despite being somewhat active as an MRM, I've never heard of W.F. Price.
__________________________________

As I understand it, he's the publisher of The Spearhead, which is probably second only to A Voice for Men among active MRA blogs/websites. From Friedman's article:

"According to Futrelle, 'This is a guy who ... blames the epidemic of rape in the armed forces on women, who celebrated one Mothers Day with a vicious transphobic rant, and who once used the tragic death of a woman who’d just graduated from college to argue that "after 25, women are just wasting time." '..."

(end of excerpt)

For the record, that last Price article was about how it's foolish for any woman, career-bound or not, to postpone looking for a husband - if she WANTS to marry - because her options will just keep going down after 25, just as her career options would. No argument there. However, as some pointed out, there was no need for Price to drag the dead woman's name into it - he could just as easily have made the same argument some other way, without hurting her grieving family. Tasteless.

Last month, he had a falling-out with Paul Elam (of A Voice for Men). You can find the details at "WF Price of The Spearhead eviscerates Paul Elam for his impending 20/20 appearance."

http://manboobz.com/2013/10/18/manosphere-catfight-wf-price-of-the-spearhead-eviscerates-paul-elam-for-his-impending-2020-appearance/

Hothead Dr. Bernard Chapin, in 2012, also attacked AVFM.

David Futrelle says: "The basis of the disagreement is, surprisingly enough, sort of substantive: Chapin is a right-wing blogger, while the A Voice for Men guys like to pretend that they are somehow above political partisanship. But naturally, this being the Men’s Rights movement, this disagreement played out in the silliest possible way.

"In several videos made during and after the comments-page kerfuffle, Chapin charges that A Voice for Men – which he now refers to as A Voice for Diabolical Leftists – is being taken over by leftists and radical feminists, some of them possibly agents for the Southern Poverty Law Center (or at least SPLC fellow travelers). No, really; he seems to actually believe this.

"According to Chapin, the vanguard of this leftist infiltration of AVFM is the site’s relatively new “managing editor,” a long-haired, middle-aged IT dude by the name of Dean Esmay, whom Chapin has taken to calling “Dean Rimsgays” and “Dean Licksgays.” (Such a wit!)

"Chapin accuses Esmay of being an evil lefty who doesn’t appreciate the full gloriousness of small government, while Esmay accuses Chapin of not having a solution to the problem of greedy, golddigging, Alpha-male-chasing ladies. No, seriously. At one point in the debate Esmay apparently confronted Chapin about this crucial Men’s Rights issue:

Chapin says: "While you’re at it, explain to me how 'smaller government' will end hypergamy. Indeed, explain to me if you would why libertarianism (whichever particular flavor of that ideology you espouse) would not actually APPLAUD hypergamy in women? What, like she owes her man something? If he’s a 'loser' who doesn’t make enough money to make her happy, why shouldn’t she dump him and trade up? Hey, isn’t that the FREE MARKET?"
__________________________________

However, I've heard Wendy McElroy, who is certainly not a woman-hater, talk about the social effects, positive and negative, that resulted from the 19th Amendment. If you are implying that that subject must not be studied because it's politically incorrect to do so...

Posted by: Cousin Dave at November 6, 2013 6:57 AM
________________________________

Of course not. On a side note, there's no point in trying to cover up the undue(?) violence committed by, say, British suffragists. Also, Susan B. Anthony was anti-abortion, but so was everyone else of that time, pretty much - just as plenty of white left-wing radicals of the 19th century were still pretty racist. Not to mention that for someone who would supposedly have opposed abortion *today*, she was in the habit of making pretty rude, uncalled-for remarks to those colleagues of hers who chose to have children, even though getting married back then usually made that inevitable. (For details on that, Google the op-ed "When did Susan B. Anthony, the great suffragette, cast her anti-abortion vote?")

But to say that the 19th Amendment should never have happened - or that it should now be REPEALED - is clearly an idea that's just plain uncivilized and does not deserve to get published. There are many such undeserving ideas.

On the flip side, Barbara Ehrenreich, in her excellent 1988 essay "Drug Frenzy" (you can read it online), pointed out that while Prohibition was clearly a mistake, you couldn't very well dismiss the more serious issues that helped create it. (She makes it clear we should have found some other way of dealing with the problem.)

Ehrenreich says: "Usually, the targeted issue conceals a deeper anxiety. For example, as historian Barbara Epstein has argued, the late nineteenth-and early-twentieth-century temperance crusade--which was every bit as maniacal as today's war on drugs--was only incidentally about alcohol. The real issue was women's extreme vulnerability within the 'traditional marriage.' Husband's leave, husbands get violent, husbands drink. But you couldn't very well run a mass crusade to abolish HUSBANDS or--in the nineteenth century--to renegotiate the entire institution of marriage. The demon rum became what the psychohistorians call a 'condensed symbol' of male
irresponsibility and female vulnerability..."