Chick Says She's Too Attractive to Like Star Wars. Receives Death and Rape Threats.

[Pong Messiah]

Wow. Hell hath no fury like a nerdling scorned?

 

I Will Not Apologize for Making a Joke About Star Wars

Murder, rape, acid in her face. Wow, these people really take their Star Wars seriously!

[Darth Krawlie]

Well, IS she attractive?

 

EDIT: Yeah, she is. And that alone makes her hatable, regardless her feelings about Star Wars.

[Pong Messiah]

EDIT: Yeah, she is. And that alone makes her hatable, regardless her feelings about Star Wars.

Fair enough. But to your credit, despite your hatred, you are not threatening her with death, violation, or disfigurement. Deep down, you're really not so bad, Krawlie.

[Cerina]

He'd totally hit it. With consent.

[Destiny Skywalker]

It just really baffles me how anyone thinks a rape threat is acceptable at all. If death threats can get you arrested, I think rape threats should, too. FFS, this makes me so angry.

[Guest]

I don't imagine the people who are doing it really care.

[Pong Messiah]

I don't imagine the people who are doing it really care.

Maybe they'd care if people started getting arrested for making rape threats?

[Good God a Bear]

I'm old because I had to Google what FFS meant.

 

Everyone's skin is too thin these days. Learn how to take a joke FFS (see what I did there).

 

I still say its the result of my generation failing as a parent but I won't get into that.

[Guest]

Here's my take:

 

These are the same people from Gamergate, and from every other case of women being attacked online. They're the real trolls of the internet, and I wish that we could shine the light on them more. They don't need to be arrested, but they should be identified. Their employers should know. Potential employers should know. Their parents and loved ones should know. Their teachers and potential partners should know. Arrest? Seems like you'd need to be able to prove there's more to it than words on a screen.

 

These people aren't upset because she insulted Star Wars, they're upset because she said "I'm pretty and popular and you aren't" and, more importantly, she's a woman who has a voice who's daring to speak about things they like.

 

But some of the comments in that story aren't quite as horrible as they seem.

 

Maybe a SW nerd needs to sneak into her dark room, dressed like her bf, rape her, but she doesn’t know it’s rape because she thinks it’s her BF.

Revenge of the Nerds?

 

We should get her address then bury her a** in Star Wars memorabilia lol

Not sure this is even a threat at all? I mean, this one sounds to me like "we should get her address and send her presents!"

 

Finally: how can you tell when Fox News is satirical?

[Guest]

 

I don't imagine the people who are doing it really care.

Maybe they'd care if people started getting arrested for making rape threats?

 

Maybe, but I think they'd have to be pretty direct for anyone to be arrested, and very little of what she wrote is actually a threat.

 

There's a difference between wishing someone harm and actually threatening to harm them.

[Pong Messiah]

Everyone's skin is too thin these days. Learn how to take a joke FFS (see what I did there).

I totally agree with you!

 

That said, making a threat against somebody is more than just a joke! Even if it's funny to you, something you know you'd never act on, if the other person doesn't know, it ain't a joke.

 

I'm not saying we decapitate people who make threats in the comments section of articles or anything, but more consequences (besides being shunned or blocked) certainly wouldn't be a bad thing.

 

There's a difference between wishing someone harm and actually threatening to harm them.

I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with you!

[Guest]

GGAB - do you mean that the reporters skin is too thin, or those threatening her?

[Destiny Skywalker]

Here's my take:

 

These are the same people from Gamergate, and from every other case of women being attacked online. They're the real trolls of the internet, and I wish that we could shine the light on them more. They don't need to be arrested, but they should be identified. Their employers should know. Potential employers should know. Their parents and loved ones should know. Their teachers and potential partners should know. Arrest? Seems like you'd need to be able to prove there's more to it than words on a screen.

Yes to all of that. I love the people who go dig up information on these trolls and expose them, but it's far too prevalent and it's a constant threat to women. I personally know a young female sports reporter, and she gets rape threats all the time via email and Twitter. It's horrifying. This isn't something that someone should have to worry about.

[The Kurgan]

Their employers should know. Potential employers should know.

I doubt many of them have employers. That's half the problem.

 

Beyond that, it just seems like more of the same anonymity of the internet enabling douchy behavior. I doubt there's much that can be done for the sort of people that would freak out over some chick's tongue-in-cheek article satirizing (generally accurately) hard core Star Wars geeks. It's quite sad that this is what we've come to, as a culture.

[Good God a Bear]

GGAB - do you mean that the reporters skin is too thin, or those threatening her?

 

The ones that are threatening her. So what if she called you a nerd and made a joke about Star Wars? Get over it. Wasn't talking about the reporter at all. At no time do I feel death threats and rape threats are a joke.

[Guest]

That's what I figured.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

 

I don't imagine the people who are doing it really care.

Maybe they'd care if people started getting arrested for making rape threats?

 

Unless you can prove intent and the ability to carry it out, that kind of infringes on free speech, no? Not that I condone what they said, just saying where do you draw the line? This is basically an online bullying argument, which I know some around here have argued against regulating. So why is it all of a sudden different when it involves online threats by keyboard warrior trolls when it involves an attractive girl and rape threats made online? Oh we will regulate that, but the online bullying that causes a teen to commit suicide, it's that suicidal teen's fault for going to facebook and not shutting off his/her PC.

[Pong Messiah]

I'm not sure how to answer that, Chalup.

 

I mean, what's the problem here? I see a very clear line between trolling (which I heartily approve of) and saying "I am going to find you and hurt you" (which I heartily disapprove of).

 

The former is a great way to entertain yourself and others by upsetting over-emotional dimbulbs, the other is a threat -- which has never been covered by the first amendment as far as I know. Might be difficult to prove intent to cause fear, but it's not a freedom of speech issue.

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I don't support that kind of speech, but what I am saying is unless you can prove that those trolls can actually carry out their threat, then it is trash talk that is protected under free speech, even if it is morally reprehensible. Most of these idiots don't live in the same timezone as this lady. Is what they are saying disgusting? Yes. But don't the police have better things to do than chase down every facebooker who posts something stupid like this?

 

Also, I have seen some people argue against regulating online speech when it comes to cyber bullying, but in this particular case, they seem to be reversing their position. I am questioning why it is okay to regulate in one instance, and not in another. I have seen threads here and elsewhere where some kid gets cyberbullied, and then commits suicide. Then there is some call to regulate cyberbullies and then all of a sudden people come out of the woodwork and criticize that call for regulation, citing free speech. Yet in this case, there is outrage over what was said. To me, this is basically the same thing as cyberbulling, except instead of some geeky awkward 14 year old teen boy who no one cares about, we have some attractive woman that people seem to be white-knighting. Isn't that inconsistent?

[Pong Messiah]

Even though I play one on TV, I am not a legal expert -- but it is my understanding that being able to carry out the threat is not necessary; just instilling fear is. Not 100% sure, but will check when I have time.

 

So assuming I am right, as far as cyber bullying goes, I think it's a pretty clear line, too: telling somebody they are ugly and should kill themselves is reprehensible but you are free to say it. Telling somebody you are going to sneak into their bedroom and rape them is a threat and even if you can't actually pull off the act, you are not free to threaten/instill fear in that person.

 

I'd have to see some examples of people reversing positions and being hypocrites, but I wouldn't be surprised, since consistency is pretty rare

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

I'm not a legal expert either, but your examples to me at least, seem like a distinction without a difference. The end result is the same: intimidation. But seriously, what is the greater threat: a victim of cyber bullying who has some mental defect like severe depression in which someone successfully bullies them into suicide and does so knowing this person may actually do it, or some middle aged troll without a job or car living in his mom's basement 5 states away posting "I'm gonna rape you?" Why isn't one on par with the other?

[Pong Messiah]

Regardless of the end result, I see a distinction between saying you are going to do something to somebody and telling somebody they should do something to themselves. I mean, assuming we free will is a thing, suicide is a choice, no matter how many times somebody tells you you should do it. By definition, you can't choose to be murdered or raped.

[Odine]

This is a dark conversation

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

Regardless of the end result, I see a distinction between saying you are going to do something to somebody and telling somebody they should do something to themselves. I mean, assuming we free will is a thing, suicide is a choice, no matter how many times somebody tells you you should do it. By definition, you can't choose to be murdered or raped.

Even if that choice is made by a minor? So take it a step further. What happens when you have sexual predators who entice minors to meet them off line, and then those kids get sexually abused? That kid had "free will" to go out to meet the abuser, however at the same time, minors don't have the right or legal ability to consent to sex. Therefore there are regulations are in place. So, why not cyber bullying?

 

Personally, I think in both cases (trolls making rape threats, and cyber-bullied kids being told to kill themselves or whatever other intimidation or threats occur) there should be a certain amount regulation, as well as legal accountability for the offender in each case*. I am just saying that I believe that when you are for regulation in one case but not another, it is inconsistent because both cases can be classified as cyber bullying. I also find it interesting that it always comes down to some attractive girl being the victim, on whether it's a topic certain people care about, and I would argue that if this Katherine Timpf were less attractive, no one would care. It's really like the Natalee Holloway case, when you think about it: if the victim is a blonde white girl, everyone is outraged, but anyone else, no one gives a crap.

 

*caveat being if actual physical harm comes to the victim, or there is a way to prove that the offender can actually carry out the threat. Or if self harm is inflicted, there is a way to directly tie it to the incident. I am not arguing for abdication of personal responsibility, just that this issue is not just a black and white one.

[Pong Messiah]

Even if that choice is made by a minor? So take it a step further. What happens when you have sexual predators who entice minors to meet them off line, and then those kids get sexually abused? That kid had "free will" to go out to meet the abuser, however at the same time, minors don't have the right or legal ability to consent to sex. Therefore there are regulations are in place. So, why not cyber bullying?

A sexual predator is criminally violating somebody, even if that person chose to meet them.

 

It's an all around messy and unpleasant question. But at least for me personally, a threat is always going to be more serious than abusive language, no matter how heinous and hurtful the words being used.