CPAC Crowd Boos Woman For Telling Truth

At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservative Mona Charen participated in a panel on the #MeToo movement. She wrote about the experience in a New York Times op-ed:

"...[T]his time, and particularly in front of this crowd, it felt far more urgent to point out of the hypocrisy of our side: How can conservative women hope to have any credibility on the subtext of sexual harassment or relations between the sexes when they excuse the behavior of President Trump? And how can we participate in any conversation about sexual ethics when the Republican president and the Republican Party backed a man credibly accused of child molestation for the United States Senate.

I watched my fellow panelists' eyes widen. And then the booing began."

Charen shares that uttering this truth was freeing, in a way, even though she was dreading the reaction. By her account, it seems as though the women on this CPAC #MeToo panel were perhaps supposed to be there to bash liberal feminist hypocrisy, rather than to truthfully acknowledge and critique the conservative men who have actually raped, harassed, and molested women and children.

What I want to note in relation to this event is that Trump ran on a message that he was a courageous truth-teller in a world gone mad with truth-repressing political correctness. Yet, at CPAC, when confronted with the reality that the Republican Party, evangelical Christians, and conservatives now openly aid and abet the political careers of sexual predators, possibly one of the most Trump-friendly crowds to assemble in the US couldn't handle it.

I remain convinced, as ever, that the real aim of modern-day conservatism is: "truth, unless it's inconvenient to white male domination."

As always, "deplorables"  and "half" was probably too kind.

Related, and regarding Donald's recent claim that he would've run into Stoneman Douglas High School unarmed to stop the shooting:

The only reason Donald Trump would run into a school building is if he thought there would be girls in various states of undress.

— Fannie Wolfe (@fanniesroom) February 26, 2018

Establishment Republicans Lose in Alabama

Via the Washington Post, Roy Moore, has won the Republican primary in the Senate race to fill Jeff Session's seat, beating his Mitch McConnell-back opponent:

"Unable to match the [Republican-led] ad campaign against him, Moore was defended by a loose grouping of anti-establishment conservative activists, including Bannon, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, 'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson and conservative talk radio broadcasters including Laura Ingraham.

But in significant ways, his campaign differed from any other Senate effort in recent memory. On the stump, Moore made his belief in the supremacy of a Christian God over the Constitution the central rallying point of his campaign.....

In a 2002 legal opinion, he described homosexual conduct as 'an inherent evil,' and he has argued that the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage should not be considered the rule of law. He was suspended from Alabama’s court a second time for defying the higher court’s marriage decision, and he later decided to retire from the bench.

If elected to the Senate, Moore has promised to be a disruptive force who will directly challenge the leadership of McConnell."

Palin? The Duck Dynasty guy? Laura Ingraham? These people are the fringe of the fringe.

Sure, this election happened in Alabama, but it's becoming more and more clear that Republicans, after having stoked bigotry for decades to win elections, have lost control of the monster they've created.

Now, if only someone had warned us that so many of our fellow citizens might fall into a, how shall I say this, basket of deplorables.

Quote of the Day

Via Steven W. Thrasher at The Guardian:

"Listening to talking heads on both the left and the right, you’d think that America is facing a freedom of speech crisis. But the crisis isn’t what it’s made out to be. The Jonathan Chaits and Frank Brunis and Sean Hannitys of the world are not lacking in a freedom to speak, nor are the white conservatives on college campuses they seem so worried about. It’s women and people of color who struggle the most finding a platform – but there is a conspicuous lack of concern about that by free speech crusaders.

When Bill O’Reilly and the late Roger Ailes were paid tens of millions of dollars for stepping down from their jobs – far more than the settlements that the women they were accused of sexually harassing received – they weren’t being silenced. And Bill Maher getting deserved blowback for saying 'house nigga' doesn’t make him struggle to speak freely.

Those of us who are routinely called 'bitch', 'faggot' or 'nigger' on the regular –and who are threatened with violence and death – have a much harder time accessing the right of 'free speech.'"

Thrasher goes on to acknowledge both the "uncompensated cost" of this harassment and that harassers disproportionately target women and people of color. Meanwhile, members of the white male media establishment perpetuate a false "both sides" equivalence that posits that it's better to tolerate hateful intolerance than it is to keep people safe.

Easy for them to say.

On Cool Girl Politics

On the nauseating topic of the mainstream media's intense interest in running humanizing profiles of Trump supporters, the profile of the person featured in this Cosmo article, about a former Bernie supporter who is now a Trump superfan, is a good example of two things:

(a) The disjointed way the mainstream media buries ledes about those on the left and right who were had by, or complicit in, the spread of Russian propaganda regarding the 2016 eletcion; and

(b) The confluence of how the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right.

Today, I'm focusing on the latter, although this particular Cool Girl's ties to Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik, briefly referenced in the Cosmo article, are certainly worth delving into further as well.

The Cool Girl featured talks about how "punk rock" it is to support the (scare quotes mine) "counter-cultural" Trump and, before that, Bernie Sanders. It might seem odd to some that a person would go from Bernie to Donald, but it's not odd to me. The men have important policy distinctions to be sure, but they are also two sides of the same white-man-privileging-masquerading-as-anti-establishment-populism coin.

Now, when I talk about Cool Girl Politics and, specifically, where the Cool Girl Left meets the Cool Girl Right, what I'm talking about is the following.

First, on a general note, we see the adoption of antisocial "just in it for the lulz" Internet behavior. Being "politically correct," that is kind and sympathetic, is largely coded in Internet culture as feminine and weak. Here's the Trump/Bernie superfan opining on her Internet behavior:

“I'll definitely tweet things just to be a jerk and rile people up. I think it's funny. And I think that it's important to push the limits sometimes and force people to have uncomfortable conversations.”

Cool Girls make a point of not just rejecting "political correctness," but bragging about how they reject "political correctness." And, they certainly don't need no stinkin' trigger warnings!

Second, and more narrowly, the Cosmo narrative of this Trump/Bernie superfan is the story of a woman who - like many - gives man after man after man, and even the worst of men like Trump and M1lo, all the benefits of the doubt, while giving none to other women - especially Hillary Clinton.

We saw that disparate treatment repeatedly when Clinton faced Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and then, later, when she faced Trump in the general election. Even though Clinton was rated as more honest than both Trump and Sanders, people consistently believed that both men were more honest than her. It was simply taken as a given by many along the political spectrum that Clinton was History's Greatest Monster.

For instance, even though Trump has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without their consent, the woman profiled in Cosmo is suspicious of the women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. She also carries a "Free Assange" tote bag and is now allied with a notorious anti-feminist man who has said "misogyny gets you laid."

White men are innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Women are guilty even if hearing after testimony after investigation proves they're innocent.

Three, and related, this disparate treatment of men and women is not examined or questioned.  Instead, we often see a very stupid, yet enduring, narrative in US political discourse that if a woman trashes another woman then it can't possibly be grounded in misogyny.

What I've noticed when I've been targeted by Political Cool Girls is that these women often serve as gateway misogynists. Their own intentional or unexamined misogyny gives cover to male misogynists on the left and right to cheer on the misogyny and engage in it themselves. After all, many people think, if a woman starts it, it's fair game!

Finally let's examine the contention that supporting unqualified and less-qualified men over a vastly more-qualified woman is "counter-cultural." Spoiler alert: It's not.

Since our nation's founding, we've had an unbroken line of (mostly white) male presidents. Refusing to seriously examine why that is, or acknowledge the role that misogyny continues to play in that, is less "punk rock" and more your standard, shitty Ted Nugent concert.

Trump Supporters Still Chant "Lock Her Up"

In case you were wondering if some Trump supporters are still deplorable bigots, a crowd of 7,000 resumed their fave chant, about a woman who no longer holds public office, at a Donald Trump rally over the weekend.

Oh, and they still want their fucking wall, even though Trump's proposed budget plan would cut domestic spending - including medical research that they would ostensibly benefit from - in order to pay for it.

Via the Washington Post:

"They’ve been watching Fox News and reading Facebook, and they’ve concluded that the Washington machine is blocking him at every turn. They blame the conservative Republicans, and they blame the Democrats, and they blame the news media, and they blame, even now, Hillary Clinton.

'Lock her up!' the crowd chanted spontaneously, again and again. They were families and young couples and old folks, lifelong Republicans and people who’d never voted for a Republican before, an almost entirely white audience, and they danced to Trump’s trademark soundtrack of ’60s and ’70s pop hits, and they chanted 'Build that wall.'"

Here is my summary of Donald Trump's entire term: He will pass the buck for every loss and take credit for every win. His fans will believe it all because he frames anything counter to that narrative as "fake news."

Quote of the Day

Via Jill Filipovic in the New York Times, on the oft-tweeted photo of Donald Trump and dozens of men sitting around a table making health policy decisions about women's bodies:

"Mr. Trump promised he would make America great again, a slogan that included the implicit pledge to return white men to their place of historic supremacy. And that is precisely what these photos show. The same kind of men who have been in charge of the United States since its founding, so very proud of themselves for trying to ax the rights that make it possible for women to chart their own futures — and to compete with men. If women can’t decide for themselves when and if to have children and are instead at the mercy of men and nature, there will simply never be 50 percent of us at that table, or in any halls of power. The men of the Republican Party know this just as well as women do."

That's why, Filipovic suggests, the all-male photos might have been intentional "red meat" to Trump's base of aggrieved, entitled white men.

Tired of Winning Yet?

That's what Internet neo-nazis say to each other, you know, about their god-emperor, Trump.

And yet, are they winning as much as they think they are? In some ways, yes, I suppose. In others, not so much.

Via Michael Shear at The New York Times:

"In record time, the 45th president has set off global outrage with a ban on travelers from Muslim-majority countries, fired his acting attorney general for refusing to defend the ban and watched as federal courts moved to block the policy, calling it an unconstitutional use of executive power.

The president angrily provoked the cancellation of a summit meeting with the Mexican president, hung up on Australia's prime minister, authorized a commando raid that resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL member, repeatedly lied about  the existence of millions of fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election and engaged in Twitter wars with senators, a sports team owner, a Hollywood actor and a major department store chain. His words and actions have generated almost daily protests around the country."

Shear goes on to note that Trump's loyal base, of course, is unperturbed by any of these issues. Many, in fact, think Donald has accomplished a great deal, more than President Obama ever did!

Outside of that pro-Trump-bubble wherein The New York Times is "fake news," we continue to see signs that many believe the executive branch of the government now lacks legitimacy.

He lost the popular vote, of course. He's reached high unpopularity levels in record time. He seems confused about how being the head of a state might be different than being the head of a company. For instance, in our political system, he can't make a law come into being with the wave of a hand and the bark of a CEO-like command. With more evidence that Russian interfered with the election, and Trump aides might have known about it or have been complicit in it, it's clear what "winning" looks like for Team Trump: ignorance, incompetence, authoritarian, juvenile, unfair, illegitimate, and proud of it.

We must continue to resist. It is effective. And, because it's effective, we must also be wary of the Trump administration taking actions or spreading propaganda to manufacture legitimacy. For instance, this Tweet. He might be hoping to get the chance to use again one day, in the event of a terror attack on US soil:

The judiciary checked his power as unconstitutional, so now the judiciary is added to the ongoing tally of Trump enemies.

So now, Trump has a ready-made excuse in the event a terror attack does occur. The attack wasn't his fault, he'll say. After all, he's the tough guy who tried to stop it until the judiciary meddled. Thus, a future attack becomes not something he mourns as a tragedy or is in any way responsible for, but a "win," especially if the person who committed were from one of the above 7 countries.

That is what "winning" looks like in the Trump era.

Throwback Thursday: ALT-POTUS 45

Somewhere, in a parallel universe so very far, far away, Day 9 happened for Madam President, and for the other, luckier versions of ourselves:

DAY 9: STILL NO NAZIS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL OR IN MY MOTHERFUCKING WHITE HOUSE.

— ALT-POTUS 45 (@IfHillaryHad) January 30, 2017

Also in this parallel universe, Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein didn't Thelma & Louise certain segments of the left off a motherfucking cliff by acting like Trump and Clinton were both just as bad as one another. FUN TIMES!

And yes, one of my coping strategies is dark humor, ha ha HA, why do you ask?

The Brave War On Safe Spaces!

Since I see so much regular mocking of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and content notes, would it be helpful to the people for whom such things trigger their cruelty if I added content notes for the fact that some of my post have content notes?

JUST WONDERING!

But seriously, people have been mocking content notes and trigger warnings for years. If that's the metric they use to automatically dismiss a person, or their posts, it's their loss. If they have so few actual problems in their lives that content notes and trigger warnings are the hill they want to die on with respect to Internet dialogue, I guess that must be nice for them?

When I see someone mocking safe spaces, and the mechanisms people use to create them, I know I'm dealing with someone who resents other people setting boundaries. Alert Alert Alert! The hot take about them is: OMG liberals/progressives are so ridiculously over-sensitive. But really, imagine a person hating boundary-setting via a simple note at the top of a post so much that they take time out of their life - spending time with loved ones, reading a book, watching a good show - to be a jerk about this topic. (Also related: people who think it's a human rights violation to be blocked or unfriended on social media! The horror!)

It's really indicative, I think, of a larger cultural disdain for boundary-setting.

Have you noticed, for instance, that the mocking of safe spaces and trigger warnings is a favored taunt of the gloating Trump supporter?

As Trump is someone who had admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without their consent and ran a campaign promising to strike a blow against that great national threat/terror-of-terrors "political correctness," this War Against Safe Spaces is especially amped up right now.

I think about the dialogue in terms of this favored meme of Trump fans:

The moral equation these folks make is that white bigots having to be "ruled" by a black man is akin to women and people of color having to be "ruled" by a racist sexual predator.  The racists were in pain for 8 years, so now it's your turn! 

Sure, Trump may destroy the economy, re-align the US with Russia, stock his Cabinet with Goldman Sachs elites, send people to die in who knows how many wars, and make most of his fans' lives financially worse off, but hey, the important thing right now is that bigots get to gloat at Clinton supporters and cackle at [content note: ableist slur] "butthurt* libtard tears" for the next four years!

Isn't conquering political correctness via dank meme what's really important in life, once you stop to think about it? The bigots, oppressed by safe spaces, shall truly overcome!


*Why is the adjective often "butthurt" with these people?
**LOL at the meme: "no riots or tantrums." Isn't electing the supremely-unqualified Trump the ultimate in-your-face man-baby tantrum of all time?

Waiting For His Coronation

So, Donald Trump lost the popular vote by close to 3 million votes, was according to the CIA aided in the election by Russian hackers and Wikileaks, and is planning to throw himself an Inauguration parade and event that advertises itself as "a seamless canvas of harmony, inclusion and democracy."  

Sometimes I wonder how my life might be different had I the gall and confidence of a deplorable, unqualified white man.

That Christina Hoff Sommers Washington Post Piece

Did you catch it?  As she is wont to do, she helpfully advises feminists that if they/we stop being hysterical, then maybe people would listen to us for once.

I'm not linking to her article, but I have some suggested improvements for it. Check out my full post, over at Shakesville.

On the Perils of Being a Cool Girl

[Content note: Sexual assault, misogyny]


"From father's house to husband's house to a grave that still might not be her own, a woman acquiesces to male authority in order to gain some protection from male violence. She conforms, in order to be as safe as she can be." - Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women (1983)

Dworkin, above, theorized that some women are anti-feminist/conservative because acquiescing to conservatism offers women protection from male violence. Men, this model of conservatism paradoxically teaches, are said to be naturally barbaric except to women with whom they are bonded by a parental or marital relationship. So, under this model, male protection is thought to come from, first, a woman's father and, second, her husband via marriage (once her ownership is transferred from dad to hubby). 

The system is implicitly upheld by conservative men who, purportedly, respect the boundaries of another man's property-female. Not for the woman's sake, mind you, but because to do otherwise would be a grave insult to the male-owner.

This model stands in contrast to, as Dworkin characterized, liberalism's promise of sexual access to all women all the time. To paraphrase, in order to be a cool liberal girl, a woman had to be sexually available at the whim of their enlightened liberal comrades. She further contrasted both models with feminism's constraint that sexual access actually ought to be dependent upon consent and reproductive freedom.

Bringing things to the present, we see that Trump, the nominee of the conservative/anti-feminist party in the US, represents a break in the bargain that some conservative women thought they had made with conservative men. In him, we have a man who on tape admitted to sexually assaulting women, whom women have come forward with allegations that Trump has assaulted them, and is being sued for allegedly sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl (is it weird that that isn't bigger news?).

And yet, conservative man after man after man has stood by Trump. His campaign appeals to and condones the basest misogynistic impulses of his supporters. And, at least some conservative women are rightly angry, as Amanda Carpenter writes in an oft-cited piece:

"Over the course of the GOP primary, it became clear that too many Republicans felt it was too politically risky to do anything that would offend the types of voters Trump was attracting in droves — the types who showed up at rallies wearing T-shirts that said, 'Trump that b—-' and 'She’s a c—, vote for Trump.'

Somehow, in some amorphous but unambiguous way, it was decided that appealing to those voters was more important than appealing to women.

....But not all men think this way. We’ve heard over and over again how privately anguished GOP leaders were, although not anguished enough to take any concrete steps to stop it."

It can be an odd position to be in, to be a progressive feminist woman who is sympathetic to the way conservative women - women are sometimes anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant - are treated. Like, why didn't they listen to us, feminists, that the men they ally themselves with are clusterfuck catastrophes of misogyny? Why now? Why does the misogyny matter to them now? Is it because they are just now realizing that while it is true that "their" men love chivalry, such men love male power even more?

And, despite our differences, I think many women could agree that when we are mistreated as women, in misogynistic ways, it's not acceptable and it harms all women. And, in such treatment, we have commonality. 

Lastly, I'm reminded of the cost of trying to play the "cool, exceptional girl" game. And by that I mean the girl or woman who's a liberal or conservative and who's also an avowed, loud-and-proud NON-FEMINIST who, you know, doesn't care that the guys in her fantasy football league threaten to "rape" their opponent each week or who take a certain pride in "not being friends with other women."

Such a woman might gain some temporary protection or points with guys, but it usually ends with a huge blow to the dignity. When you surround yourself with men who need you to play the cool girl game  because their masculinity so fragile, they'll eventually retreat to their boys-only locker room and remind you that there's a certain type of male bonding that is predicated on diminishing women and girls.

That will, in turn, remind you that yup, you may be cool, but you are, in fact, still a woman. Just a woman.

The Cheese Stands Alone?

Hillary Clinton is too distant, says conservative man using his New York Times platform to pen an intimate, humanizing portrayal of an authoritarian predator.

I've seen even liberals approvingly cite David Brooks' recent column on Trump, cited above, but my summary is really the big take-away I get from it.

Brooks asks us repeatedly to imagine that we are Trump and how pathetic and sad that must be, and that, if/when Trump loses he'll be all alone in his isolated misery.

No.

Let's take a step back.

Shortly after California's anti-gay Proposition 8 passed in 2008, a professional class of "marriage defenders" started increasingly framing themselves as a "civil" voice of opposition to marriage equality, in contrast to, say, Fred Phelps and his more obviously hateful clan. The role of these groups, such as National Organization for Marriage, seemed to be, in part, to convince courts, legislatures, and the populace that opposition to marriage equality was not rooted in bigotry but, rather, in a mere nicey-nice belief that all children deserved a mother and a father.

An expression of this purportedly non-bigoted belief can be found in the book What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson. Sample: "Marriage is a comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act."

While perhaps sounding innocuous, it wasn't really one that most non-professional, non-paid, non-academic opponents of marriage equality would cite for opposing same-sex marriage. Rather, such "regular people" were more likely to express varying levels of disapproval of homosexuality or, what we often think of as, bigotry.  (Sample: Homosexuality is wrong and society shouldn't condone it by allowing gays to marry).

I have a long, 10+ year, history of engaging with anti-equality folks on Internet. And, it's my strong belief that the professional class of marriage defenders knew that their base was bigoted, leveraged this bigoted base in support of various anti-gay measures, and simultaneously acted outraged at all suggestions that their base was bigoted. (Sample: some writing I did at Family Scholars Blog awhile back on civility in the context of same-sex marriage debates).


With Supreme Court doctrine articulating that animus toward homosexuality could no longer be an acceptable basis for law, it was incumbent upon professional marriage defenders to gaslight LGB people about the very real bigotry we experience.  And, these marriage defense think-tankers often did so while pulling down six-figure salaries, book deals, and speaking gigs themselves.

You know what else they did? Convinced their poor- and middle-class bigots that same-sex marriage was going to doom the country.

Hmmm, we have marriage equality now so what happened to all that?

I think many people are realizing that same-sex marriage has had little, if any, tangible impact on the lives of most of its opponents, other than that people now live in a society that is more accepting of it. So what benefits, if any, did the marriage defense establishment tangibly provide for its base, in the long run?

So, coming back to the present.

In a similar vein, Republicans have long articulated deplorable beliefs in subtle, dog-whistle ways, knowing that their base has various bigotries. Racism. White supremacy. Anti-Muslim sentiment. Misogyny. Transphobia. The Republican establishment has leveraged these bigotries for their own benefit, giving cover to a base that holds more explicitly deplorable views, while also doing very little for this base. They've effectively stoked rage and, because they've done nothing to assuage it, have also created the conditions for anti-establishment sentiment. 

Republicans and conservatives now seek to distance themselves from Trump. As David Brooks does, they fantasize that Donald Trump is perhaps an uncommon, rogue, lone wolf not representative of the base they've long catered to.

Yet, he's exactly who Republicans have enabled to become the leader of their raging pack.

And, if/when he loses, the Republican establishment may abandon Trump to his incompetent, man-child misery.  It seems doubtful, however, that Trump's millions of supporters and fans will also do so.

Who Ya Gonna Call

...TrollBusters?

[content note: online harassment]

Here's an interesting concept:

"Are you a female journalist who has been subject to online harassment and abuse? If so, this one’s for you. An organization dedicated to combating online harassment is seeking 100 women writers and journalists to participate in a social media monitoring program called the Pilot 100. The initiative follows on from a year-long study by the organization TrollBusters, which was founded by Michelle Ferrier, an associate professor at Ohio University’s E.W. Scripps School of Journalism.

TrollBusters—whose tagline is 'Online pest control for women writers'—has spent the past year studying instances of harassment reported by journalists through its website. The group also is developing tools to monitor harassment in real-time and providing assistance to targets of online abuse."

The TrollBusters site provides an incident response form, where users can report harassment received on Twitter (for either themselves or other users).  The response involves sending positive messages to the person under attack. 

In the midst of an online attack, it can be validating to receive positive, supporting messages.  It, of course, doesn't punish the attackers or take away their ability to continue to harass. But, I think such a response can be a helpful part of what, in order to be effective, will necessarily have to be a multi-faceted response to online harassment.

Other critical components would include (a) platforms developing better tools, human resources, and policies to manage harassment and (b) the criminal justice system adequately responding to harassment when threats and defamation are involved. In the absence of such components, we - users of the Internet - will have to continue managing this problem ourselves in more grassroots, creative ways.

For the past week, for instance, one user has taken an obsession to my blog. He first used a neo-nazi-esque handle and then later left an anti-gay slur directed toward another user. Like many a harasser, once banned, he claimed I just couldn't handle his impressive intellect and that I have nothing of substance to say. (But XENA posts tho!)

He began flitting from IP address to IP address, also changing his username in order to sockpuppet. After I required manual approval of comments, he continued to post comments (seen only to me) admitting to and taking pride in being part of the "alt-right." His admitted goal was to "frustrate" my readers and cause me to change my blogging/comment moderation behavior. (Side note; Has the rise of Trump emboldened this type of harasser? Many anti-LGBT and racist commenters I've interacted with pre-2016 often expressed a more.... subtle bigotry).

In final temper tantrum he called me a "loser" (hmm, sounds familiar) who can't "handle" "real world interactions." Now here, we must also understand that the online harasser is usually a miserable person. Imagine spending your free time deliberately trying to irritate people, rather than spending time with loved ones and doing things that are.... actually cool? Many online harassers have the aim of irritating others and then berating people for taking actions that stop the irritation.

That approach is a key tool in the online abuser's toolbox. They poke and poke, seeing what they can get away with, and then when they find a boundary you don't let them transgress, they see the act of setting a boundary as weakness. With the exception, I guess, of establishing giant walls to keep out scary scary immigrants, the harasser sees the establishment of boundaries itself as proof that the boundary-maker is a loser.

Which brings me to the observation that the harasser's real issue is not that boundaries are established, but that he doesn't get to establish which boundaries for which people are allowed to exist.

That is the entitled mentality that solutions to online harassment will have to address through policy, technology, and human effort.

Every person who runs a forum will have to decide for themselves what conversations and content to allow. For me, when I run into what I call the "Aggrieved Abuser" (think: "You fag! Wait, how dare you ban me you weakling!") type of online harasser, I will often allow a comment or two to demonstrate that these are the deplorables* that many Internet users actually have to deal with. And then, if the person continues commenting, I will institute a ban to secondarily show that such viewpoints are not welcome here.

In this instance, I can take action to disallow certain content. However, the responses to online harassment will have to be tailored to account for the nuances and features of each platform.

It has been widely acknowledged, even in mainstream media sources, that online harassment is a problem. While a helpful first step, we also need more people thinking about how to tangibly address the issue. Kudos to TrollBusters for taking that next step.


*Deplorable as a noun is happening. Hillary has made it so.