Well, yes Jessica, and they should

There’s a quote from Maya Angelou that I’m fond of: “When people show you who they are, believe them.” It’s a sentiment I think about quite a lot when I’m combing through harassment or threats online. Because you do want to believe that the person who calls you a “bitch” or who says you should be raped isn’t really like this – that they’re actually good people having a bad day, or a bad life. You want to see the best in other people.

But the truth is that who we are is very much about how we treat others – whether it’s on the street, in our homes or, yes, on the internet. That’s why I was so concerned to see the broad latitude given to online abusers in Facebook’s guidelines for dealing with harassment and hate speech. Their baseline approach appears to give harassers the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

Because people are indeed at liberty to be complete assholes.

For example, it’s perfectly allowable for someone on Facebook to write: “To snap a bitch’s neck, make sure to apply all your pressure to the middle of her throat,” because it’s not an example of “credible” violence that is a “call to action” – just a venting of frustration, they say.

Similarly, if someone were to send the message, “unless you stop bitching I’ll have to cut your tongue out,” it would be classified as an “aspirational” or “conditional” statement. So this direct threat would be permitted on the site.

Why would Facebook believe that this kind of abuse is not a real threat to people? Well, because it’s online.

Nope, those are pretty much the restrictions which apply to real world speech to. Incitement to immediate violence? Verboten. Near everything else? People are at liberty to be complete assholes.

That’s quite a dangerous leap: just because someone might not threaten a person to their face in the same way they would online, it doesn’t mean that threat or hate is any less real.

Err, yes, yes it does dearie.

And here we get to the heart of it:

People like this do not feel “indifferent” towards the targets of their ire simply because they’re on the internet. They feel hatred, they feel rage. We have no way of knowing – not really – who will end up being a real danger to people. But we don’t need to give them space and attention, and we certainly shouldn’t give them permission to spread their bile.

It’s not our permission to give luvvie. Free speech is a right.

29 comments on “Well, yes Jessica, and they should

  1. Should I look at all the ‘kill all men’ Tweets & Facebook posts sent my her fellow feminist whackjobs, or should I just ignore the silly little cow?

  2. Ackcheloi, you can be prosecuted for sending threatening electronic communications.

  3. The cult that she supports, endorses and not merely wants to see imposed on all of us but for which she takes action every day to try and have imposed on us, has MURDERED 150 million human beings and ruined the lives of hundreds of millions more.

    Fuck verbal abuse.

    Her very existence is an insult to the human race. An insult added to the horrific injury done by her vile socialist creed.

  4. Also this Valenti hag –via the Internet–daily practices the equivalent of standing on a street corner screaming the hate filled abuse common to her creed at passers-by. She may not herself talk of snapping necks or what have you ( altho as Julia points out lots of her scum-bitch Marxian “sisterhood” have little problem with making violent if equally empty threats) but this is, I believe, the female who speaks with enjoyment of drinking or bathing in male tears.

    In short she is a Marxian hate peddler who spews leftist poison on others and then feigns surprise and cod fear when she gets some back from those justifiably angry about the evil for witch (sic) she is a brazen advocate.

  5. I am disappointed in you, Tim – selectively editing her quote is beneath you.

    For fair minded readers, here is the full thing:

    “There’s a quote from Maya Angelou that I’m fond of: “When people show you who they are, believe them. Except when it’s Islamists. When they show you who they are, don’t believe them, it’s not true.”

  6. People should be able to say things which I, you, or Jessica Valenti disagree with. Yes, absolutely, that’s freedom of speech, and it’s a vital liberty.

    People should be able to talk about how to murder us, so long as they probably don’t mean it? No, I can’t see it. The harm is that it may intimidate some of us out of speaking freely about what we believe. The benefits are invisible to me.

  7. People are at liberty to be complete arseholes

    Amen to that, I’m very glad of it. To prove it, in a bit of pendantry, I corrected your spelling 🙂

  8. @SJW – that would be a matter for a jury, to decide the question of whether or not they meant it. Though even then there should be and currently is a commonsense bar to prosecution. I’m quite content that people who are seriously discussing how to kill others are prosecuted, but Tim Worstall suggesting that council workers or MPs be hanged from the nearest lamppost for some bullshit or other? Not really.

  9. To prove it, in a bit of pedantry, I corrected your spelling

    Ditto. Unless you were just hanging around.

  10. SJW: More tripe from you.

    People are venting the rage that Valenti goes out of her way to induce in them.

    There is no evidence of anyone conspiring to or discussing methods whereby she might be killed .

    “I’ll strangle you, you arrogant bitch” is an expression of rage. It is easy to understand that the rotten socialist venom Valenti dispenses could inspire such anger in those with less emotional control.

    It is a classic female ploy going all the way back to the playground. Female runs her gob to provoke rage and when that boils over runs to Teacher squealing that she is a “victim” of bullying.

    Now if emails are being sent saying for example: ” She waits at the bus stop in front of Waitrose at 5pm. We’ll grab her and drag her up the alley etc” then those WOULD constitute a serious expressed threat of violence. I doubt there is even one of those floating around.

    In short she is a Marxian skank who does her best to boil peoples blood and then claims to be a victim of the anger she has willingly stirred up with her venom.

  11. Arthur.

    Check the Vainglory section, it’s a standing joke round here.

  12. @SJW – Should we ban a lot of action films as they show ways to kill people? Swordfish comes to mind with the ball bearing bomb – but even Bond should be banned because they show people fighting and killing each other… For that matter – Eastenders and Corry should be banned as they have both had people killing each other in them – surely actually showing someone visually how to do it is much worse than just writing some words that need interpreting?

  13. Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to send a message by means of a public electronic communications network which is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.

    “unless you stop bitching I’ll have to cut your tongue out”

    That falls under “of a menacing character”, surely?

  14. Oh, we’re talking about the constitutionally-protected American freedom of speech. Not the miserable excuse for freedom that passes in Britain.

  15. “People are venting the rage that Valenti goes out of her way to induce in them.

    There is no evidence of anyone conspiring to or discussing methods whereby she might be killed .”

    Given that it’s Valenti, Mr Ecks, I find that hard to believe. But those will be the ones with serious intent, who aren’t stupid enough to discuss the matter on Twatter.
    I read the press every day in hope…

  16. BIND
    “Arthur.
    Check the Vainglory section, it’s a standing joke round here.”
    Still Muphry’s law is Muphry’s law.

  17. Because you do want to believe that the person who calls you a “bitch” or who says you should be raped isn’t really like this –

    What if they’re right though? The bitch thing, not the rape thing. Even Stevie Wonder knows better than to rape Jessica Valenti. She looks like a MTF transsexual.

    If 8 out of 10 cats say Whiskas tastes less appetising than their own bumfluff, mebbe it’s Whiskas – and not the kitties – that’s in the wrong.

    You want to see the best in other people

    Unless they’re white men. Or Christians. Or Republicans. Or male students randomly accused of rape by some attention-starved blue-haired fantasist with more holes in her story than in the binbag of doughnuts Diane Abbot has for brunch.

    In those cases you write stuff like “Let’s re-arrange our empathy, lol!”. While wearing a t-shirt that says “I bathe in male tears”.

    Eh, mebbe Maya Angelou had a point.

    That’s why I was so concerned to see the broad latitude given to online abusers in Facebook’s guidelines for dealing with harassment and hate speech. Their baseline approach appears to give harassers the benefit of the doubt at every turn.

    That’s just a fucking lie. Facebook is extremely ban-happy and bends over backwards to accommodate easily offended leftwing women of both sexes. It also lets you block any user you like with a couple of mouse clicks.

    But, as even the most trigger-warning-happy pansified proggy social media companies (i.e. all of them) are finding, placating SJW’s is impossible. They’ll cry and lie till all right-wingers are purged from the digital public square, then they’ll turn on each other like a sack of blood-maddened ferrets.

    They will never, ever, ever be happy because they’re unhappy, broken people – hence the obnoxious politics-as-revenge. What progressives really want is antisocial media, a digital hugbox where their carefully constructed ideological bubble made out of organic, fairtrade, carbon-free bullshit is never challenged in any way.

    In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, hate crimes have spiked

    Fact check: they haven’t.

    and college campuses are trying to deal with an influx of white supremacist activity.

    An influx of white supremacists only Jessica and similarly deluded shitlibs can see.

    Maybe they’re invisible racists, like the invisible rapists Jessica was complaining about when she wrote:

    We have more than just a campus rape problem. There is invisible rape all over

    Come to think of it, the first thing Kevin Bacon did in “Hollow Man” after turning translucent was surprise sex on some poor, innocent woman. He probably also voted for Trump, the photon-phobic patriarchal prick.

    We have no way of knowing – not really – who will end up being a real danger to people. But we don’t need to give them space and attention, and we certainly shouldn’t give them permission to spread their bile.

    (Comments are closed.)

  18. As others have pointed out, Valenti goes out of her way to insult and enrage millions of men on the internet. A small handful of idiots react – just as she intended – and she uses this as an excuse to claim victim status and call for additional privileges and powers for herself and sweeping restrictions on all men. It’s an extremely common trick, and a lot of third-wave feminists use it. Gamergate was heavily based in this, IIRC.

  19. “It is a classic female ploy going all the way back to the playground. Female runs her gob to provoke rage and when that boils over runs to Teacher squealing that she is a “victim” of bullying.”

    Maybe the males shouldn’t so over-emotional then? If they react hysterically to provocation, they shouldn’t be allowed out in polite society.

  20. “Maybe the males shouldn’t so over-emotional then? If they react hysterically to provocation, they shouldn’t be allowed out in polite society.”

    They used to call that the “You big cry-baby” shaming ploy Matthew. Back in the playground.

    Hardly an original thought.

  21. It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to hold both “Valenti should just get over it” and “she shouldn’t provoke men because they can’t help their reactions” as opinions at the same time.

  22. “It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to hold both “Valenti should just get over it” and “she shouldn’t provoke men because they can’t help their reactions” as opinions at the same time.”

    Who said that exactly?

    I said that what she wants is to carry on heaping shit on men and they have to take it with a shit-eating grin. A nice system if you can make it work. Say nasty stuff and people will get mad and be as nasty or nastier back. QED.

    I don’t think excessive emotion is a good ploy in life or even the playground. Must better to bide your time and dob the bitch in for smoking behind the bike shed or playing Doctors and Nurses or any other of her vices.

    Likewise those offended by Amadumb’s Marxian abuse should use the SJW tactic of complaint to authority and then the non-SJW tactic of spreading via Internet the fact that no action is ever taken on non-SJW complaints.

    Enough heat will start to crisp Amandumbs fat arse tho’ it may take some time to finally bring her down.

  23. Mr Ecks – I get them mixed up too. Here’s a ready reckoner to tell these fun, fresh, fortysomething frumious feminists apart:

    Amanda is the one with the Desperate Dan jawline, resting bitch face, and a mouth like a baboon’s bumhole.

    Jessica is…

    …ah, bollocks.

  24. that would be a matter for a jury, to decide the question of whether or not they meant it. Though even then there should be and currently is a commonsense bar to prosecution…

    If it comes to criminal prosecution, certainly. But I’m concerned with freedom of speech. If people are being intimidated out of advancing their views, that’s a problem. I’d rather censor suggestions of violence which the writer, I’m told, doesn’t mean anyway. For this purpose, the test should be not whether the writer definitely meant it, but whether a reasonable person might be intimidated by it.

  25. SJW: The reasonable MAN test was long ago abandoned by your leftist buddies in favour of Marxian subjectivist bullshit. Too late to be trotting it out now –esp when you are attempting to use it as an excuse to legitimise exactly such subjectivist whining..

    No to all forms of censorship. That bitch knows very well what she is about–as Tim Newman summed up succinctly above.

  26. “There’s a quote from Maya Angelou that I’m fond of: “When people show you who they are, believe them. Except when it’s Islamists. When they show you who they are, don’t believe them, it’s not true.”

    This. I was going to post the same but why duplicate.

  27. “There’s a quote from Maya Angelou that I’m fond of: “When people show you who they are, believe them. Except when it’s Islamists. When they show you who they are, don’t believe them, it’s not true.”

    This. I was going to post the same but why duplicate.

    Me too.

    Douglas Murray is getting really fed up with telling people, like the Muslim Theologian Andy Burnham, that when they say they’re killing for 72 virgins in heaven, they really are, cos the Koran says so.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.