Rape threats are a dime a dozen on the internet.

[sufrommich]

If every rape threat ever made on the internet was reported to the police, they would have to spend every waking minute investigating them. I get tired of this being the answer to what to do about these threats when the real solution lies with the administrators of those websites,you want to stop rape threats on a website? Don't allow a climate to evolve that encourages crap like that.It's that simple.
I also am tired of the "just don't go there" tripe. That's not a legitimate option,it's basically telling women to stay away from places you're not welcome after the toxic climate has been allowed to fester (anybody who doesn't think that climate hasn't been allowed to fester over at Discussionist should do a site search of "HoF" over there to see that the "Doctors" rape threat was the result of that climate not a "fluke" from out of nowhere.It's been a long time coming). Instead of putting an end to the toxicity at Discussionist as should be done,today one can go there and read insane personal attacks on Seabeyond questioning her sanity and accusing her of child abuse. This will stop when the admins put a stop to it,no amount of calls for police investigations will do it, the onus is on the owners.

[NYC_SKP]

1. K/R nt

[boston bean]

2. I agree. That is where my focus has been all along.

Looking for some leadership. If they care about women visiting their sites, they will act. If not, and more clicks for $$ are made by abusing us... well... I think that statement just speaks for itself.

[BainsBane]

36. Women generate money too

Misogyny is a limited revenue stream. That site has no more than about 30 active members. If it were less hostile, there might be more.

[NuclearDem]

3. This insanity has got to stop.

If people want to have "fun" debating right wingers, they can sign up at Yahoo News. We shouldn't have to tolerate the owners of this site simultaneously owning a site policed only by its own inmates.

[sufrommich]

4. A lot of the cruel,toxic shit being spewed at Discussionist

is not right wingers,it's pretty obvious that some are DUers,it's sick.

[A Simple Game]

10. Not surprising, more and more DUers are right wingers. n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

21. You could, of course, argue with them over there...

or, you could spend even more time here complaining about them.

Kind of a tossup which is a more productive use of your time.

[sufrommich]

24. What should we be debating with them about?

How crazy is Seabeyond? How abused are her kids? Who hates men more Hof or Hof? Would a good stiff cock help? Are they unnattractive,is that why they're feminists? Was the Doctor really a HoFer trying to make us look bad? I've seen every one of those "questions" posited by so called "liberals" over there. Discussionist in filled with ex and present day DUers who are angry that they cant use the "c" word,they can't photoshop S.E.Cupp with a dick in her mouth,they can't comment on how fappable a female DUer is when she posts a pic,they can't use terms like "pussy" or "feminazi" or "manhaters" because the feminists ruined all their fun!. let's all pretend that the Doctor wasn't getting high fives over there for constantly bashing feminists before he went off the deep end. So congratulations to them,they found an unmoderated hidey hole where they can lick their wounds and complain about how hard it is in todays world for a white guy and bond with conservatives who feel the same way.Christ almighty,even Fark has had enough of that shit,maybe some day they'll figure out they're on the wrong side of history.

[bahrbearian]

30. +1

Hey,Boston Bean put me on the blocked list too. It'll look good on my resume.

[MADem]

15. Don't visit that OTHER site, then.

Look, I hate beets. I find them ODIOUS and immoral. They make me want to vomit, that's how visceral my reaction is to them.

Does that mean I shouldn't patronize my grocer because he sells beets, fresh, canned and jarred?

Should I demand he stop selling them, because they make me ill?

You want--out of some entirely pointless "principle" -- the site owners to forgo a portion of their INCOME, the food on their plate, the cash that ensures their survival, so you can have some sort of stupid "satisfaction" by "controlling" nothing more than WHERE people say nasty things. You aren't going to stop them--you're just going to have a harder time tracking them.

That nastiness won't disappear if that site gets shut down....but the admins having the ability to know who's who in the zoo will disappear.

It's just not cool to tell other people what to do. I stay away from those hate threads at that site. You can do that, too. In fact, ANYONE can.

If you really want that site shut down, you write the admins a check and reimburse them for all the hours they spent creating it, and all the money they are earning--and will earn-- from the site, and an additional sum for the damage to their reputations by pulling out of the enterprise, making them look a bit, well, flaky and unbusinesslike.

That will probably be a pretty big check you'd need to write. Can you afford it? And what will you do when the disruptors go to other sites to plot and mock--will you write a check to that site owner as well?

You know, my view of this is that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. The admins here created a site for the malcontents who want robust conversation but can't abide by the TOS. It made things a LOT nicer here. Why close down that site and bring those jerks back here?

Makes NO damn sense.

Of course, we could always demand that the US government fire up an "internet police" to monitor objectionable content, and censor anything "offensive" to people--how does that sound?

[NuclearDem]

16. Oh boy.

Does that mean I shouldn't patronize my grocer because he sells beets, fresh, canned and jarred?

If you really wanted them to stop selling them, then yes, you would boycott them and not buy until they stopped. That's how it works.

There are a lot of places I don't go anymore since becoming vegan, and a lot of entertainment I don't patronize anymore because of its misogyny and homophobia. There are parts I miss about all of it, but I'm willing to sacrifice that until changes get made.

You want--out of some entirely pointless "principle" -- the site owners to forgo a portion of their INCOME, the food on their plate, the cash that ensures their survival, so you can have some sort of stupid "satisfaction" by "controlling" nothing more than WHERE people say nasty things. You aren't going to stop them--you're just going to have a harder time tracking them.

Income being partly made off of some of the most vile racists and misogynists I've seen on the web.

That nastiness won't disappear if that site gets shut down

Nirvana fallacy.

Of course, we could always demand that the US government fire up an "internet police" to monitor objectionable content, and censor anything "offensive" to people--how does that sound?

Absolutely ridiculous. Me asking a private business owner to make changes to practices I find objectionable in no way means I have any interest in seeing government ban speech.

[MADem]

17. Naaah. I can deal with the beets. I avoid them--I don't pick them up, I don't look at them,

I walk right by them and don't even give them a passing glance.

See--"I" have the power. NOT the beets. I'm not going to allow those stupid beets--which are a tiny percentage of the total foodstuffs on offer at my grocer--to ruin my shopping experience. "I" make the decision--those beets have NO POWER OVER ME.

And again, if you don't like where the admins get their income, then SUPPLEMENT THEIRS. Buy the site out. It's real easy to tell people what they "oughta" do when they are not paying that person's bills!

Alternatively, if you think you can do better, get off the dime and do it. Fire up your own site. Make your own rules. Make an advertising deal so you can pay for the nuts-and-bolts. Hire some people to fix your gear when it breaks, that will be available around the clock. Be on guard constantly against Denial of Service attacks, troll swarms, and other fun stuff like that. Create your own reality.

The question has been asked and answered. The admins are proactive. Unless the country fires up the Internet Objectionable Speech Police, which you've said you do not support, we are where we're at. This IS a privately owned site. The owner has laid down his rules for his site. You might just want to manage your expectations--there will always be jerks who try to goad and bait. You're the one who won't get that Nirvana, at least not here--and you shouldn't expect it. As for those jerks, you've let them know that you're VERY sensitive indeed, when what you should be doing is telling them to pound sand and their hate can't touch you or bring you down.

These are pixels on a screen. They ONLY have power over you if you LET THEM.

[boston bean]

22. I blocked MADem

Reason being is I just can't allow rape threats be analogized to not liking beets.

We are here to support our members, not make them feel their feelings are not worthy of discussion or action.

[JTFrog]

25. Thank you.

That was beyond pathetic and disgusting.

[Starry Messenger]

26. Thank you.

I love that he claims he could be a woman--I don't know a single woman (except maybe a really unhinged Repub woman) who would compare rape to beets.

[BainsBane]

32. Wow. I just saw this

It's so hurtful.

[LanternWaste]

29. What if your local grocer tolerates and employs individuals who threaten rape?

What if your local grocer tolerates and employs individuals who threaten rape? Again merely ignore it...?

[BainsBane]

33. And if he rapes, just ignore it

Why let it interfere with the bottom line? Is that the extension of the analogy?

[BainsBane]

35. I thought you understood they were coming over here

That some are using that site as a staging ground to attack women HERE, not there. The trolls have come here and made their threats. They make them both places. Pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away, and it certainly does nothing to prevent his /they following through with those threats.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Who is this "we"?

It's my, possibly fallacious, understanding that they tolerate us as members of their enterprise since we merely pay to be on this particular site...

Oh, wait, not all of us even pay to be here. I suppose using the site without paying gives some of us special rights to demand the owners act in some way we approve of. And also gives us the ability and the right to forbid the owners from opening another enterprise that didn't earn our approval.

I've noticed a number of DUers stating that they will withhold their dues as long as something they don't like is going on. They'll still post and use the site, but just won't pay as their statement of truth and justice.

Kind of like a rent strike. Such an honorable thing to do.

How about all of you who don't like how the place is run just collect your pennies together and run your own damn place your way? Others have done that. I can think of at least two sites run by ex-DUers. There are probably more.

[boston bean]

23. Treasonous bastard as has been blocked as well.

[bahrbearian]

31. +1

[CrispyQ]

5. When my star expires I won't be buying another one. -nt

[sufrommich]

6. I hear you, I quit contributing some time ago.

Enough is enough.

[JTFrog]

9. Hell, I want all of my donations back at this point. Damn right there will never be another. n/t

[CTyankee]

7. I agree completely. The admins must take the initiative. This has gone too far.

Either the admins clean the Discussionist house or they should call it quits, recognizing reality and shut the sh*thole down. There is no honor in perpetuating vile attacks against women. There is a time when common decency says ENOUGH!

That time has come!

[ismnotwasm]

8. They're like a fashion

And taken about as seriously as one .

[JaydenD]

11. I am completely appalled at how admin handled this.

I figured out not that long ago they weren't too friendly toward feminists, but This? this snotty reply, this blame bb because she dare talk about it.

Overwhelming.

[BainsBane]

34. I've written to both administrators

One Sunday and one early today, but I haven't had a response.

[geek tragedy]

12. Own the swamp, own the mosquitos.

When site ownership explicitly refuses to adopt a no-harassment policy, they own the consequences.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

28. +1

I had this whole metaphor about owning a house and then filling a pit with sewage next door, but you codified it in six words.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

13. would be a good example to set for other admins

--those who are decent, anyway, will take note.

I'm not a web-meister, but I would think DU is pretty respected in the web-design world? It's very well done, I would think there are other designers who would look up to them.

The answer certainly isn't that women should further curtail our activities. That's a long-term fail that needs to stop being repeated.

[War Horse]

14. Speaking as someone who has attended various sites since the BBSs

and Internet sites since the early 90s, if you give up moderating, everything is lost.

The only more or less successfull way I've seen someone dealing with this and survive it is to bury all the crap in a subforum, so that any sane person stays away from there, and leaves the rest of the site looking at least somewhat respectable. Or apply the banhammer.

The DU way, Discussionist, I've never seen before. It can crash or burn. Thus far it seems to mostly burn.

[nomorenomore08]

18. Regardless of who it allows to post, Discussionist should have an explicit policy against

harassing or threatening fellow posters. If they don't, then why the hell not?

[marym625]

19. While I agree the owners

Need to step up and do something about threats, to excuse the perpetrators from legal prosecution because it's "a dime a dozen" is part of the problem.

Just like "jokes" are tolerated in real life, the mentality that because it happens often so it's not worth it, helps the mindset of it being okay. Of it being acceptable.

Sorry but I found that statement pretty narrow minded.

I agree with the rest