1) The absolute, lowest, background radiation level, of men hassling women.
2) Even despite that, demonstrably worse that what men get.
This is not the norm. This is what's still left when the volume of a woman's public presence is dialled down to infinitesimal above zero. Normal is way worse.
I get recruiter spam and harassment alike. How's that for fun?
There is no way they're on the same level. The worst recruiter I've had to handle is way easier than the tamest of harassers. It's not about frequency in the slightest.
I just want to say that I'm deeply uncomfortable with how quickly hacker news mods have moved to kill comments they disagree with since the new "professional" management came in. Is yummyfajitas hell-banned now? He had nearly 7 years of history. All his comments here are dead-ed.
For the record, this is what the grandparent said that got him hell-banned:
"According to the article, the author received one unwanted message every 50 days. How is it "cognitive dissonance" or "denial" to describe pressing delete every 50 days as a minor problem?
Note that in a typical 2 week period, I probably get more than 36 recruiter spams. Could you concretely explain what you feel is being denied?"
You might disagree with it, but it's hard to see how it is beyond the pale of polite discourse.
We haven't done any of those things. No moderator touched any of those comments, let alone killed them. Also, "professional" management? Ugh.
It's difficult for me take your "deeply uncomfortable" seriously when you haven't taken any trouble to find out whether what you're saying is true. It's not like it's hard.
Edit: Also, it's disingenuous to quote that out of context to make it seem like comparing sexual harrassment to recruiter spam is completely innocuous, when everybody, including the person making that comparison, knows damn well how provocative it is.
I disagree with the tone with which yummyfajitas is discussing this, but I absolutely think he should have the right to voice his opinion. Aren't downvotes punishment enough? I wonder if he had been more cautious in his phrasing if his comments would still be dead-ed for picking the "wrong" side of an issue.
I see the direction that hacker news is going. Whether by mod or by algorithm, it ain't pretty.
You've created a long series of accounts to do serial ideological trolling on Hacker News over the years [1], that in turn have gotten serially banned for a long time. There's no change in policy or direction here—nor in your practice of keeping your main account studiously separate from the ones with which you stir up shit. That is not using this site in good faith. None of this is the least bit new—you're simply relying on the fact that the fair-minded users of Hacker News don't have access to all the data.
In the latest episode—this one—we learn that you're adding concern trolling to your repertoire. Your mention in another context of how this terribly-concerning "new direction" that HN is taking would never have happened under the author of "What You Can't Say" is especially rich, given that PG would have (and, as I recall, did) ban your ass hands down the fastest of any of us. It's I who have consistently been the moderator most hesitant to do that (Exhibit A, the present discussion), oh and I've been doing this job for years already, so maybe find something else to "concern" about?
You really got me with the "professional management" though.
1. Anyone with showdead turned on who'd like a glimpse of what I mean by "serial ideological trolling" is invited to peruse this eugenicist tidbit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7447575. There's a lot more where that came from.
Obviously not. The account was deleted and banned shortly after the tweets were made. Note that that screenshot was taken about 3 minutes after the account was created.
It's basically just Internet trolls registering Twitter accounts behind proxies and saying the edgiest things they can think of to stir the pot.
"It's just trolls" is a mixture of monstering (it's them not us) and trivializing.
This is misogynist male supremacist terrorism. Twittering threats of violent sexual assault is like phoning in bomb threats - even if you don't have any explosives, the communication itself is an attack.
Don't call it terrorism. We don't give time to terrorists, ignoring them is the best solution; giving them more attention, yelling loudly for them to stop, and attacking them in retaliation are what terrorists want you to do.
"its all in the mind of the receiver (aka psychological)"
Two points:
1) Except when it isn't.
2) Isn't that enough? What are we, robots? It's true that some people might be able to treat the two things the same and not be affected, but they're a tiny minority. Harm is harm, even if you think that everyone should have thicker skin.
@yummyfajitas - it appears that all of your posts are dead right now. I'm not clear if you've been banned after many downvotes or what, but the last several posts are all dead now.
Has there been a change to the number of downvotes needed to make a post "dead"? I've had showdead on forever, and it feels like I'm seeing many more posts that have been deaded by voting alone.
