Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Communications The Internet News

How To End Online Harassment 834

Presto Vivace sends this excerpt from an article at the Kernel, titled 'With Gamergate, it's not enough to ignore the trolls.' Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not), and subsequently a demographic that comprises half of the total human population has to worry about receiving rape threats, death threats, and the harassment of angry mobs simply for expressing their opinions. This needs to stop, and while it's impossible to prevent all forms of harassment from occurring online, we can start by creating a culture that shames individuals who cross the bounds of decency.

We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Not only is such language inappropriate regardless of one's passion on a given subject, but any valid arguments that existed independently of such rhetoric should have been initially presented without it. Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.

Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions. While most people would probably agree with this in theory, far too many are willing to access and distribute this humiliating (and often illegal) content. Instead of simply viewing stories of doxing, slut-shaming, and other forms of online intimidation as an unfortunate by-product of the digital age, we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To End Online Harassment

Comments Filter:
  • by Prokur ( 2445102 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:19AM (#48357929) Homepage Journal
    Everyone stop making fun of her!
  • "or religion" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:23AM (#48357945)

    Religion is a choice. I see no reason to effectively exclude it from discussion. I agree that it is a sensitive topic, but it has no place in a list of properties that a person does not have a choice in.

    • by Twanfox ( 185252 )

      Unless a subject's religion is the bearing of a discussion, I don't see where using racial slurs enhances a debate. All too often, though, slurs are used if that is one of the primary defining characteristics about the subject. What all these characteristics amount to is trying to avoid a Straw Man argument.

      More simply put: Don't attack the messenger if you cannot refute the message.

  • by truedfx ( 802492 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:25AM (#48357953)
    Surely harassment doesn't suddenly become acceptable if it's done to someone you agree with (but just don't like or respect)?
    • by mcvos ( 645701 )

      True, but it's often used to shut someone up. It's harmful to people's ability to express themselves freely. Harassment can happen for many other reasons, and all of them are bad, but I think harassing someone for having an opinion you disagree with is among the most harmful. (Though harassing someone for belonging to a group you consider inferior (women, minorities) is also right up there.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:33AM (#48357989)

    What irks me about GG is that the shitty things a few gamers said is *evil* beyond imagining and must end, while the shitty things professional journalists said is defended across the board.

    ‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

    Why is it socially acceptable to demonize an entire demographic (gamers)? Because they're the "out group" for feminists. It's always acceptable to attack gamers in the media. Likewise you can always safely attack men, rich people, and white people. These so-called journalists and pundits seem to think gamers are male, middle class, ignorant, socially crippled, and white. That's a stereotype from the mid 90s. Games went mass market with the PS/2. Games went female with social media. Games went international and cross-cultural 15 years ago.

    It shouldn't be safe to attack gamers, because they're no longer male, ignorant, socially crippled, and white. Even if they were, it shouldn't be acceptable to attack people because of their sex, social status, and race.

    This isn't equality, this is oppression and it's far worse than a few anonymous death threats.

    • by BRSloth ( 578824 )

      'games culture' != 'gamer'.

      We can take, as an example, Jack Thompson. Jack Thompson was *never* a gamer, but due his, to put mildly, "acts" with games in general, he became part of it (and the "acts" themselves). Actually, the whole ordeal just shows how the "culture" was representaed: anti-social white kids living in their parents basements (Alexander even pushes this point futher in the end).

      It's akin to Felicia Day post about how she felt when two guys with gaming tshirts where in her way: It was not abo

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      You should reread the comment you posted, without your rage glasses on.

      ‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about

      I've been a gamer for nearly 35 years now (from back in the day when we had to type the games in BASIC from books). This isn't talking about ME, its talking about the culture. Not only am I not offended, but from what I've seen, this is exactly right.

      And even if I were to consider it a bit over the top, its nothing anywhere near as unacceptable as the treatment the "Gamergate" people have been meeting out in return.

      To make matters wors

  • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:33AM (#48357995)
    We have a problem with the propensity of people to want to view garbage (broadly defined). How we control this, along with harassment, is the big issue. This piece sadly offers no useful insights.
    • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

      The trick with most harassment is to ignore it, or blatantly show how stupid the harassers are in front of their peers (more difficult, but still possible). Repeated success at this will actually earn respect over time, leading to LESS harassment. Showing weakness invites more of it. The trick is to identify the behaviors that draw it and change them, or opt not to engage in them while around people who will harass. If someone starts taunting, taunt back and win, if that's not possible, wait for an oppor

  • Not this shit again (Score:5, Informative)

    by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:35AM (#48358003)
    GamerGate is not about harassment or women. Here [] is a statistical analysis of #GamerGate tweets. Here [] is a case of GamerGate tracking down a harasser, and Sarkeesian refusing to report him. Here [] is a timeline of the many grievances #GamerGate supporters have against gaming journalists. Here [] is the transparent, open place we track our emails to advertisers on corrupt sites. Here [] is a blog about the corruption. Here [] is a discussion of one of the scum at Gawker. Here [] is my earlier Slashdot comment on media bias surrounding GamerGate.

    Despite the many, many articles putting the word GamerGate next to the words "misogyny", "wu", harassment" and the like there is no evidence -- No Evidence -- actually associating GamerGate with any of those things, save a very tenuous link related to how the hashtag was coined and some third party trolls who it turns out harass GamerGate supporters more than GamerGate opposers.
    • by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:22AM (#48358225)
      As soon as I saw a few troll harass women, I knew it would become the number 1 issue by journalist outfit rather than the real reason of the anger. And make no mistake troll almost certainly did not care about gamer or game, but got a rise out of harassing the women, there are study of trolling and troll out there showing they do not care about their victim or the cause they "seemingly" endorse. the reality is that troll are mostly sadist personality which gets a thrill from the rise they get out of people.

      But on the journalist side, it is the same as with dorritosgate. Rather than admit and try to change , or explain why some things are not corruption, they immediately JUMPED on the trolling and made it the SOLE issue. I am not into conspiracy normally, but this was a so widespread reaction, that it felts like a defense mechanism : try to move the issue to something else as to avoid discussing the main issue most people in gamersgate sees as an increasingly disturbing problem. I don't even recall know how it started this time (for me it already started with the "dorritosgate") but the fact is that there are far too many publication having a disturbing behavior incestuous with publisher or developper, and endorsement are not clearly marked often with the relationship.

      I see the same behavior with the sarkeesian story : She made a statement on damsel in distress openning the discussion, then rather than ignore the troll and concentrate on the counter statement indicating where she made errors or is not going the correct way for a study, journalist and folk are concentrating SOLELY on the troll.

      It is starting to be the hack of any discussion : move the thema to troll harassing women, and poof the whole discussion is dead.
    • by DeKO ( 671377 ) <danielosmari@[ ] ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:51AM (#48358381)

      The timeline is the single most important piece of information of this whole ordeal.

      You don't even have to read too far into it to see what's really going on - when people started calling out on ZQ's lack of ethics and morals, she called in favors to shape the story so she appears to be a victim instead of a sociopath, and the whole thing snowballed into the shitstorm most people saw as "gamergate": the flood of articles and opinion pieces pushed by ZQ's friends trying to convince the uninformed they are fighting against trolls that are oppressing women, when in fact people are condemning journalistic corruption and malpractice.

      The question is, who will denounce corrupt journalists? Not the journalist themselves, as it turned out.

      It didn't help that a bunch of SJW jumped in to "fight for women's rights" without having a clue as to what was going on (other than ZQ's side of the story), and it became self-sustaining; their quixotic efforts were criticized by the community, and they pushed back, claiming that denying "gamergate = misogyny" validates their fight against misogyny. At this point their discourse is not even about the original issues, it's about how they are themselves becoming victims of criticism just because they are fighting for "the right cause". They keep tilting at windmills.

  • Special treatment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leptechie ( 1937384 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:35AM (#48358005) Homepage
    Any particular reason religion is in that list of protected attributes? The others are innate characteristics while religion, regardless of how deeply held or deathly serious the consequences of deviating, is an opinion.
    • by Cloud K ( 125581 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:29AM (#48358257)

      This is the problem with "lists". I subscribe more to Wheaton's Law aka "Don't Be a Dick". Why not just not be a dick to anyone, including religious people?

      As for my views on religion (as a non religious person), it may be a choice but if the individual doesn't force their beliefs on others then I see no reason to attack them without provocation.
      Obviously it's different with the nutjob "God hates Fags" types who need to be told that they're being assholes and projecting their personal beliefs on other people (i.e. there's your provocation), but that's a vocal minority - most are just passively living by their personal rulebook and condemn the violent idiots like Westboro et al, and don't deserve a torrent of abuse for something they've not done.

    • Many are born into their religion and feel cultural or family obligation to remain in it.

  • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:41AM (#48358025)

    ... that people are wiling to do any of this stuff at all?

    I'm afraid you can't blame us evil old patriarchs for this culture of say anything you want do anything you want trash talking.

    Of course you all supported sensible cultural restrictions on what you could say, and how you could act, for the last 50 years or so ...

  • by black3d ( 1648913 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:42AM (#48358027)

    If you have a negative opinion about a person, which OP finds offensive, your opinion should be allowed to be voiced. Riiight..

    By all means, physical threats should not be tolerated, but everything else is freedom of expression, even if we dislike it or find it in bad taste.

    By the way, it's a little sexist to suggest that only women need to be worried about death threats and harrassment. I've received more than a few myself in my time. What - because I'm a guy I should just ignore it? It's not a problem? I think you'll find this is something which can be an issue for 100% of the population, not just your favorite gender. GG bigotry.

  • To avoid the lameness filter that was proccing for no apparent reason: []

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @06:59AM (#48358137) Homepage

    Gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters

    Is it? Is it really?

    Are you sure it's not only considered as such by a tiny but vocal and offensive minority?

    • Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Gavagai80 ( 1275204 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:52AM (#48358383) Homepage

      The premise seems to be that we're supposed to vocally engage and shame internet commenters who harass others. But most people will not do so. This doesn't mean we think it's ok, it means we've learned that online harassers cannot be shamed and will simply harass us in turn if we don't ignore them. Ignoring them is the only option.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        Even if you don't want to engage them you could always hit the report button. Most sites have a "no harassment" policy.

        I hope you never get any serious threats or doxxing. If you do, you may find that few people are willing to support you and the police are fairly clueless too.

      • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

        The premise seems to be that we're supposed to vocally engage and shame internet commenters who harass others.

        The problem is that there's no help in doing so. Outrage is what they want, so if everyone on the board jumps in outrage, you've "fed the troll". However, standing by and letting someone abuse another human being is flat out evil. Its bad for not just the victim, but for your own soul as well.

        That's why community self-moderation tools are so important. We need the ability to slap down and shut up miscreants. Modding their crap down to oblivion, often before their victim even sees it, is so superior to shou

  • Harassing speech looks all the same, so it should be easy to model fairly accurately. Just automatically filter it and have a switch that turns the filter off so that people can check the filter and see if anything they like has been filtered out.

    Once people are happy with the filter, they'll want to filter out more stuff, and instead of just having a switch, comment systems all over might get some sort of sliding scale where one doesn't have to look at comments below a certain level of quality.
  • Many of the journalists and supporters of the anti GG side have doxxed people... with their main accounts in the clear. Not sock puppet accounts that could be anyone. But they did it directly.

    I don't know why people keep bringing up harassment like this helps the anti GG side because the anti GG side has harassed far more.

    Who said "we should bring back bullying" was that GG or anti GG? Anti GG. Every single fucking time.

    So they have no moral high ground there and I just thought that should be made very fuck

  • Some of the funniest office 'banter' I've heard has been based on race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
    • Some of the funniest office 'banter' I've heard has been based on race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.

      I doubt that in your office banter someone ever (seriously) said "I know where you live and I'm going to come round some time and rape and kill you".

      Maybe I've just led a sheltered life.

  • by abigsmurf ( 919188 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:09AM (#48358179)
    Death Threats are unacceptable. I'm glad we're seeing journalists express their outrage exactly the same way they did when Jack Thompson received death threats and when Death Threats were made against the family of the Penny Arcade writers...

    Oh wait, there was no outrage over these, if anything there was an atmosphere of "well, they deserved it". Of course, to condemn these would require news websites to accept some culpability for the drumming up the anger that lead to the abuse they received.

    The hypocrisy and self serving nature of the journalists is probably best summed up by the "gamers are dead" articles. The basic argument presented by a disturbingly large number of them is basically "How dare you be sexist and comment on someone's sexual history you virgin man-children!" and the writers are completely unable to see the irony in doing that.

    Lastly, a call for diversity is fine but you've need to accept that diversity is more than just LGBT and women. It's the rich and poor, old and young, the conservative and liberal, the religious and the atheist, The North American and the European (or any combination of continents). Gaming sites have readers from all these backgrounds. Maybe, just maybe there are lots of people don't like being lectured to by relatively well off 20-30 year old ultra liberal Americans? Maybe, when people disagree with political opinions presented on the website, the best response isn't name calling, shaming and banning. You belittle, censor, insult and claim superiority then wonder why there's a build up of hatred on the other side.
  • Not again.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:11AM (#48358185)

    I am sick of hearing the same old fallacies over and over. Ditto with the passive aggressive shaming language, crocodile tears, and deliberate misrepresentation of troll 'threats' in order to keep the controversy going. Why is it that slashdot never really covered the opposing side to all of this? The only stories that get through are anti-gamergate/pro feminist, just like with the mainstream media (no surprise there).

    Just because a few women (sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu etc) got called out for fallaciously and hypocritically generalizing/stereotyping one of the largest internet communities doesn't mean that the majority of that community hates women. The community just has a problem with what a few specific women (and men) said. It also has a problem with the so-called 'journalists' (and their pals at DIGRA, silverstring, gawker) covering the community's activities. When journalists editorialize or propagandize, they are no longer journalists. They should have the integrity to leave the editorializing to the op-ed sections of their publications, or, ideally, abstain from it altogether.

    Why do these 'justice' warriors hate objectivity and meritocracy so much? When gaming met the internet, it was the ultimate equalizer. All that mattered was the game and how well you played relative to other players, not your race, your sex, or any other irrelevant characteristic. Trashtalk was trashtalk, and only lamers took it seriously. I remember a time when this was looked at as a positive thing. Now it's all about wearing shit on our shoulders and baiting each other into passive aggressive offense. I guess SJW politics had to turn up the intensity in order to keep certain politicians and ideologies relevant. The bottom line is, if someone criticizes you, it does not mean he hates your race, sex, religion, or anything else. Instead of routing all negatives to /dev/oppressed, have the fortitude to listen to the criticism and see where it might apply. If there's truth to it, modify your perspective. If not, discard it. Quit playing the victim. It's a loser's game.

  • by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:12AM (#48358189)

    I lost count at 30 people doxxed by those that claim to stand for "feminism" and against gamergate, starting with the black developer who lost his job to racists harassing his boss and going downhill from there to people's bank accounts getting hacked, their utilities turned off, their income held up by fraud, a couple attempts at SWATting, and even syringes, knives, and dead animals in the mail.

    At this point the "mere" verbal abuse from so called "feminists" screaming racial slurs and making threats at anyone in gamergate is practically background noise compared to the sheer number of people getting doxed and sent fucking knives and dead animals in the mail. And disturbingly all of this has not only been explicitly encouraged at times even participated in by major public figures, it's also been subject to a near complete media blackout. You would think people who care so much about women and minorities would be writing a whole lot about black men losing their jobs because of racists doxing them, or women having their income held up by fraudulent reports, or any of the other thirty plus attacks against primarily women and minorities by mostly rich white men. Unless of course they don't actually give a damn and it's just political opportunism.

    >Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.... we should boycott all sites that publish these materials....

    At this point the hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness is so staggering I'm almost starting to believe this is all some kind of kafkaesque modern art performance.

  • []

    sarkeesian/quinn/dina/wu: Minute 2:50
    Their manginas: Minute 2.52

  • There is a huge difference between things like
    rape threats,
    'I wish your mother die of cancer',
    'if you open you mouth again, I'll find your house and burn it'

    things like
    "Women have less IQ than men and you are best example of it"
    "I could answer you question, but you are too dumb to understand it anyway"

    and things like
    "I think that all muslim people are terrorists"
    "Whoever believes in God is stupid beyond saving"
    "Immigrants have 7 less IQ on average and are gaming social benefit system"

    There is a difference b

  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:27AM (#48358245) Journal
    In his book, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, Heinlein had his lead character say the following regarding uncivilized behavior:

    Gwen, my love, if one tolerates bad manners, they grow worse. Our pleasant habitat could decay into the sort of slum Elli-Five is, with crowding and unmannerly behavior and unnecessary noise and impolite language. I must find the oaf who did this thing, explain to him his offense, give him a chance to apologize, and kill him.

    Problem solved.
  • Gendered Bigotry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pino Grigio ( 2232472 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @07:34AM (#48358281)
    This is the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read at slashdot and as you can imagine it's up against some pretty stiff competition. (Am I allowed to use the word "stiff", or is that a gendered slur that reinforces the patriarchy?).

    This, for example: "gendered bigotry against women is widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters". It is? No, it isn't.

    The only gendered bigotry I come across on the internet these days, especially Twitter, involves pejorative uses of the phrase "straight white male".
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @08:45AM (#48358671) Homepage

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." — H. L. Mencken, US editor (1880 – 1956)

    Really, that's it in a nutshell.

    TFS says: "It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion"

    I will actually agree with that: it is inappropriate, as in, uncivilized, trollish behavior. And it absolutely must be tolerated, because freedom of expression is such a critical, fundamental right. Calls for silencing such boorish behavior are entirely misplaced.

  • How to end... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @09:06AM (#48358787) Homepage Journal

    Okay, in many ways, much of the framework of what you're talking about ALREADY EXISTS.

    But trolls continue to exist anyhow. Why is that?

    Because the trolls don't give a damn for the polite bounds of society.

    As to "shaming individuals who cross bounds".

    First, they have to be able to feel shame. Second, this is an entirely arbitrary watermark. Third, it's just BEGGING for abuse. It's basically institutionalization of PC-speak. Never mind that there truly ARE legitimate usages of harsh speech. Fourth, in a way, isn't this part of the problem? Weren't some of these people attempting to shame someone who transgressed some notion of "decency"?

    At this point, what would be the difference between you and someone who's doxxing or throwing off threats?

    As for "losing all credibility". So, the second someone CLAIMS these people have transgressed, their arguments have exactly zero meaning? Even legitimate arguments? Sorry, but people can be assholes and still have a valid point. Not liking them is not a valid counter to legitimate arguments.

    Sorry, but this has not been thought through, even a little. This is a very shallow thought experiment where none of the ramifications have even been considered.

  • by kruach aum ( 1934852 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @09:08AM (#48358807)

    You would think that a group that defines itself by being hyperaware of power dynamics would see the irony in using phrases like "widely considered to be "in bounds" by Internet commenters (whether they openly acknowledge it or not),", but apparently not, so I will spell it out. By putting things like this, in one fell swoop you both demonize your opponent as well as remove their ability to respond. No matter what they say, you can just go "oh, you're just not acknowledging what I know you to truly believe." No matter who they are, you can just say "well, you're an internet commenter, and internet commenters believe certain things whether they openly acknowledge them or not."

    It ends all discussion, and effectively removes any possibility of debate or even reply by describing an entire group as having property X and then removing the ability of that group to dispute that claim. It's like saying "I am right, and anyone who disagrees is a he man woman hater misogynist asshole."

    Whether they acknowledge it or not.

  • Very difficult. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jo7hs2 ( 884069 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @12:06PM (#48360395) Homepage
    I was a severely bullied youth. So severely that I have been diagnosed with PTSD as a result, as some of the events were life-threatening. In once instance, I was an early victim of what would now be termed cyber-bullying. It also was illegal under Maryland's two-party consent for voice recordings law, but was none of it was ever prosecuted. Anyway... I was recorded against my consent in day-to-day conversation. The content was then edited to make me sound either like I was intellectually disabled or a homosexual, depending on their mood. Nothing wrong with being either of those things, I'm neither, and obviously this was being done to harm. The audio files were posted on Geocities/Xoom/or one of the other free internet hosting providers at that time in RealPlayer format. This was around 1998-1999, for perspective. Due to Maryland's two-party consent laws, my 14-15yo self was able to get the audio taken down, repeatedly, by the hosting provider. Unfortunately, it took several violations before the provider finally convinced the students in question that their account would be deleted if they stopped. Each time, of course, their account was suspended until they complied. This made them very unhappy, leading to much worse taunting, and even shockingly well-targeted and convincing arguments that I should kill myself. Eventually, the audio was taken down permanently because they got tired of it. The point of my story being, this is not an easy thing to fight. Online harassment is difficult to fight even when you know the names of the offenders and they've clearly broken a law...that is nothing new.
  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @04:17PM (#48363003) Journal

    The following is not "harassment":
    1) Political disgreement
    2) Publicly questioning the credentials of one who has publicly asserted said credentials
    3) Publicly calling someone else a liar about something they publicly said.
    4) Arguing that something is or is not harassment
    5) Arguing that something is or is not sexist
    6) Arguing that something is or is not misogyny
    7) Publicly questioning a claim someone made publicly
    8) Criticizing someone who has been harassed
    9) Claiming that someone has engaged in unethical behavior.
    10) Changing the subject
    (some of these may be other sorts of bad behaviors besides harassment, but only conditionally)

    Furthermore, and it should go without saying, but the opposite is an axiom for one side: What's good for the goose is what's good for the gander, and vice-versa, in nearly all cases. The gender-reversed version of bad behavior is bad behavior, and the gender-reversed version of acceptable behavior is acceptable behavior.

    The greatly expanded version of "harassment" (generally applied to people with the wrong political beliefs only) that denies all of these things should not be "ended".

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson