Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Men as Likely To Be Harassed Online as Women

New study says men are more concerned about free speech and for women it's safety concerning the internet.

A new study released by the Pew Research Center supports what some of us have argued all along about online harassment: that it affects men as much as women and that the problem should not be framed as a gender issue—or defined so broadly as to chill legitimate criticism.

If anything, the study says, men tend to get more online abuse than women, including serious abuse such as physical threats (though women are, predictably, more likely to be sexually harassed). However, when people are asked about free speech vs. safety on the internet, women are more likely to come down on the side of the latter. Thus, it is very likely future efforts at speech regulation will continue to be cast as "feminist" initiatives.

Online harassment has become something of a cause célèbre in the last three years. It has been explored (and deplored) in numerous media reports; it has attracted the attention of politicians and even of the United Nations.

A basic premise of these discussions has been that women, especially outspoken women, are specifically and maliciously targeted for hate, abuse, and threats; many feminists have claimed internet misogyny is the civil rights issue of our time.

The Pew survey of over 4,000 American internet users over 18 conducted in January challenges those contentions. Forty four percent of the men and 37 percent of the women said that at some point, they had experienced at least one of the behaviors the study classified as harassment.

Most of this abuse involved offensive name-calling and being embarrassed on purpose. However, 12 percent of men and 8 percent of women said they'd been the target of a physical threat; 6 percent of men and 8 percent of women said they had been stalked; 8 percent of men and 7 percent of women they had experienced "sustained harassment"; and 4 percent of men and 8 percent of women said they had been sexually harassed.

Men and women under 30, who are the most likely to spend a lot of time online, are, unsurprisingly, the most likely to experience all kinds of online abuse, including its more severe forms.

It's true that women who been targets of online abuse were more than twice as likely as men to describe their last such experience as extremely or very upsetting (35 percent vs. 16 percent). But, interestingly, there was no gender gap in actual negative effects of online harassment, be it mental stress, problems with friends and family, romantic problems, reputational damage, or trouble at work. Twelve percent of both male and female victims—or about 5 percent of all respondents—said that online harassment had made them fear for their or their loved ones' safety. One percent, with no gender difference, had been victims of doxing—the unwanted disclosure of their personal data online, ranging from real names for those who post under pseudonyms to place of work or home address.

Few will be surprised to learn that women under 30 were substantially more likely than their male peers—53 percent vs. 37 percent—to report receiving unsolicited sexually explicit images. But in a more counterintuitive finding, men in that age group were more likely than women—14 percent vs. 10 percent—to say that explicit images of them had been shared online without their consent. (For those 30 and older, the figure was 5 percent for both sexes.)

This differs sharply from feminist scholars' claims that 90 percent of so-called "revenge porn" targets women, a figure based on a self-selected and mostly female sample. But it supports a 2013 study by McAfee Security in which men were more likely to report both being threatened with having intimate photos of them posted online and actually having such photos posted.

More women than men in the Pew Study, 11 percent vs. 5 percent, said they had experienced gender-based abuse online. But this gap may be partly due to differences in what men and women perceive as gender-based. A woman who is called fat and ugly on Twitter is likely to see the insult as sexist; a man who has a similar comment slung at him will likely see it simply as a personal insult.

And all the dramatic claims about the terrible hardship of being a woman on the internet with an opinion? Entirely wrong: men in the Pew survey were almost twice as likely as women (19 percent vs. 10 percent) to say they had been harassed online due to their political opinions. Part of the disparity is no doubt due to the fact that men are more likely to talk politics on the internet; in one recent study, 60 to 65 percent of Twitter users tweeting on political topics were men. But it certainly doesn't sound like men who talk politics have it any easier.

There is really no way to massage the Pew data to fit the women-as-victim narrative—but some tried. Gizmodo's Bryan Menegus simply misstated the findings, asserting that although men are targeted more overall, "women—especially young women—make up an outsized proportion of users who experience the most severe forms of harassment, like stalking and threats." Vox's Aja Romano wrote that "more severe harassment disproportionately affects younger internet users, women, and people of color."

But the dishonest reporting prize goes to Slate's Christina Cauterucci, who cherry-picked the few numbers showing worse harassment of women, ignored the ones showing equal or worse abuse of men, and finished by upbraiding males for not taking online harassment seriously. Headline: "Four in 10 People Get Harassed Online But Young Men Don't Think It's a Big Deal, Says New Survey."

As bad as it is, Cauterucci's article highlights the survey's real gender split on the issue of safety vs. freedom online. Asked whether offensive online content is taken too seriously or too often excused, women are evenly split; men come down, nearly 2:1, for "taken too seriously." Among women under 30, a small majority (54 percent) agree that offensives online content is taken too seriously; but three-quarters of young men agree.

The divide was even sharper on the question of whether it's more important for people to be able to "speak their minds freely" or "feel welcome and safe" online: 56 percent of men opted for more freedom, two-thirds of women for more safety. (Interestingly, despite millennials' reputation for wanting safe spaces, young adults of both sexes were more pro-free speech than their elders—but the gender gap was still large: speaking freely was a higher priority for nearly two-thirds of men under 30 and only four out of ten women.)

Before anyone rushes to declare women enemies of freedom, it should be noted that the sexes actually don't differ all that much in their view of what should be done about online harassment. Only slightly more women than men (35 percent vs. 29 percent) say that elected officials have a major role to play in combating it; while women are more likely than men to see a major role for law enforcement (54 vs. 43 percent), the age gap on this issue is far larger (58 percent of seniors vs. 37 percent of young adults).

Meanwhile, there is a broad consensus that social media platforms and other online services have a responsibility to stop harassing behavior by users: 82 percent of women and 75 percent of men agree. Clearly, both men and women believe that some curbs are necessary, but they tend to want the lines drawn in different places. It is also likely that women's views of the issue are influenced by the false perception that women are singled out for constant and vicious abuse on the internet.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Y'all Reasonoids have ***NOT*** recently, all in unison, chanted or even written-and-endorsed, "That SQRLSY One, He's a GREAT writer; one of the most astute observers of culture and politics EVAH!!!"

    I for one consider that to be on-line harassment of the most SEVERE order!!!!

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Bitch ima kill you

  • SQRLSY One||

    If you kill me I will be sure to hit the "report spam" button! Profoundly Hihnister revenge will be mine! So there!

  • XenoZooValentine||

    what you americans don't understand is assault weapons and hate speech must be banned for good of us all in my country they are both illegal and we don't have these problems!!!!11!!!eleventy!!!!!1!

    (Those comments are fun to read with the generic Nazi accent from a bad movie. Vee have vays of macking you tock!)

  • Quixote||

    While men seem to be less concerned with harassment than women, all of us can agree that unwanted electronic "parody" and the like has no place in our great nation. Surely no one here would dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in America's leading criminal "satire" case? See the documentation at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I hope you fuckin' get Lou Gehrig's disease.

  • timbo||

    Sticks and stones bitches. What pussies people are. And I mean that in any way one wants to read it.

    The only answer to this is to regulate the internet so shut the fuck up instead.

  • Michael Hihn||

    So THAT explains all the cyber-bullying in the Reason commentariat. It was a green light when the editors defended a debate on the best way to feed judges into woodchippers -- that was raw meat for goobers at the only major political website with unmonitored comments.

    "That's free speech."
    True, but real libertarians know the difference between private entities and the government

    "At this point, what difference does it make?"
    Alexa reports that Reason.com's web traffic ranking has been plummeting well over a year. Cato reports that the libertarian label is REJECTED by 91% of libertarians. RIP Movement, but still-growing victories for libertarian values. We may need a new label.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You (generic) can't force someone to be a libertarian if they don't want to be.

    You (Hiney) can't do squat consistent except throw turds with inconsistent aim.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You (generic) can't force someone to be a libertarian if they don't want to be.

    And the ones who ARE libertarian refuse to be CALLED libertarian

    Aggression proves my point!!

    You (Hiney) can't do squat consistent except throw turds with inconsistent aim.

    (laughing) I hit you!
    You launch personal aggression and childish name calling.
    I cite official sources like Alexa and Cato Institute

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Official by whose certifications? Hell, by your standards, I'm as official as you are.

  • Michael Hihn||

    LOL

    You launch personal aggression and childish name calling.
    I cite official sources like Alexa and Cato Institute


    Official by whose certifications? Hell, by your standards, I'm as official as you are.

    What about your personal aggression?
    Umm, Alexa is THE official source for website traffic data and analysis. Click the link *I* provided
    Cato is THE official source for ... their own surveys!! Click the link *I* provided

    I even put the links in boldface. And you're still just screeching.

    You launch personal aggression and childish name calling. I cite official sources like Alexa and Cato Institute
    (Add cyber-stalking to the article here)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is it ironic that Hihn is such a whore for credentials?

    I ALWAYS provide a source. That's called integrity, not whoring

    (It's how I jam it up the ass of aggressors, stalkers and other cyber-bullies.

  • Michael Hihn||

    For ANOTHER lying sack of shit harasser

    Source?

    BEND OVER ... (snort)

    And, you constantly present the bonfires of an organization as a counter to arguments.

    Repeating for shameless bully::
    "Umm, Alexa is THE official source for website traffic data and analysis. Click the link *I* provided Cato is THE official source for ... their own surveys!! Click the link *I* provided
    What about your personal aggression?"

    ANOTHER genius stoopid enough to PROVE what I said at the top. (lol)
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6904289

    Haters gotta hate, Aggressors gotta assault. Liars gottta lie. The breast-beating self-righteous.

    (Tone and boldface in self-defense of another aggression)

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Aggression proves my point!!

    Disagreeing with you isn't aggression, and you don't have a point. 0 for 2.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR AGGRESSION. Cyber-bullies ALWAYS lie when they include a quote. Pathetic?

    Aggression proves my point!!

    You (Hiney) can't do squat consistent except throw turds with inconsistent aim.

    (laughing) I hit you!
    You launch personal aggression and childish name calling


    Disagreeing with you isn't aggression,

    THIS IS NOT DISAGREEMENT! (SNORT)
    "You (Hiney) can't do squat consistent except throw turds with inconsistent aim."
    IT'S AGGRESSION.

    Cyber-bullies travel as a tribe, like a pack of wild dogs. (sneer)

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Cyber-bullies ALWAYS lie when they include a quote.

    It was awfully considerate of you to illustrate that point by quoting somebody else in your incoherent reply to me.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I reserve my pity for people who DON'T try to spread their deficiencies around, but your mileage might vary.

  • pan fried wylie||

    Pity doesn't make it keep going.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I like the way you wiggle girl.

  • DesigNate||

    Are you really trying to conflate name calling with aggression?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "Cyber-bullies travel as a tribe, like a pack of wild dogs. (sneer)"

    A-woo, werewolves of Reason...

    A-wooooooooooooooooooooo...

    (I saw a libertarian drinking a Pina Colada at Trader Vic's. His hair was perfect.)

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    You saw Robby out and about?

  • Dillinger||

    >>>(laughing) I hit you!

    Aggression proves Scarecrow's point!

  • Michael Hihn||

    REPEAT: Cyber-bullies ALWAYS lie -- post a bullshit quote -- and then aggress.
    They're SO filled with hatred, they ass-ume nobody will see their blatant lie.

    Dillinger's bullshit

    >>>(laughing) I hit you!

    Aggression proves Scarecrow's point!

    (sneer) ACTUAL QUOTE (emphasis added for the morally impaired)

    You (Hiney) can't do squat consistent except throw turds with inconsistent aim.

    (laughing) I hit you!
    You launch personal aggression and childish name calling

    Umm, that's name-calling. Aggression.
    He said I was a bad aim ... but I hit him PRECISELY in my description of aggression, which is what I said ... "You launch personal aggression" ....

    Aggression proves Scarecrow's point!

    (smirk) Mine is called self-defense -- from the aggression you shamelessly lied about.
    So you too prove,my point here:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6904289

    I now have FIVE aggressors, so far (This really is the fucking zoo I described at that link)
    And Reason's traffic stats have indeed been plummeting for well over a year (See Alexa link)

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Reason traffic hasn't been plummeting from cyber bullying though. It was no empathy for skippy's mom or Trump *mumbles something*

    I actually really doubt it's been falling for a whole year. 'Round election time everyone was glue'd to their new source, yeah? I seem to remember record setting benchmarks for political media.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I actually really doubt it's been falling for a whole year.

    (sneer) DON'T CHECK THE PROOF I PROVIDED. And it's well over a year. But tribal loyalty. Since YOU brought it up, here's the traffic rankings in the US

    291 Slate
    576 WND
    662 DailyKos
    767 Salon
    902 The Blaze
    1187 National Review
    1860 TownHall
    ….
    ….
    2968 Reason

    Trump *mumbles something*

    (lol) The LOWEST approval President!

    "None are so blind as those who REFUSE to see."

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Cato reports that the libertarian label is REJECTED by 91% of libertarians."

    These 91% are the "yes, but" so-called "libertarians" who vote for other parties, because...

    I am libertarian, except… Except, all those baby-murdering (AKA, fertilized-egg-cell-killers) need to be PUNISHED by Government Almighty!

    I am libertarian, except… Except, all of those ILLEGAL HUMANS from the other side of the border, who audaciously DARE to defy Government Almighty's border fences, must be PUNISHED!!!

    I am libertarian, except… Except, all of you less-moral-than-me chintzy people would make ZERO free-will contributions to The Poor, so we MUST have Government Almighty coerce our charity choices for us.

    I am libertarian, except… Except, all of those LICENSE VIOLATORS (my sister-in-law is a licensed interior decorator, and I REALLY respect her RIGHTS, dammit!) need to be PUNISHED!!!

    We have WAY too many "libertarian-oriented" fair-weather friends, who abandon freedom as soon as their favorite self-righteousness is challenged! THAT is what the 91% figure shows!

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're attacking Cato, but ...:

    I am libertarian, except… Except, all those baby-murdering (AKA, fertilized-egg-cell-killers) need to be PUNISHED by Government Almighty!

    (lol) That's Ron Paul's position ....the exact opposite of socially liberal! DUH

    We have WAY too many "libertarian-oriented" fair-weather friends, who abandon freedom as soon as their favorite self-righteousness is challenged! THAT is what the 91% figure shows!

    You REALLY believe that screaming would come from people who describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal??? Every one of them is an extreme winger, left or right.

    Is THIS a "fair-weather" friend?

    I am libertarian, except ... Except state governments have powers that have never been delegated. We are POWERLESS against abuse by states because -- checks and balances are a lie, along with separation of powers ... and three co-equal branches. Because I HATE faggots and sponsored a bill forbidding any defense of fundamental rights ... and IMPEACHING any Justice who votes to support marriage equality. Using the KKK version of States Rights.
    -Ron Paul

    But you're "a GREAT writer; one of the most astute observers of culture and politics EVAH!!!"
    Except for confusing libertarians with extreme left and right wingers. Left vs Right has been obsolete for a half-century, as the entire political spectrum.

    And it's still true that Left-Right=Zero.

  • Qsl||

    Moreso I am libertarian-ish but refused to be identified with wackos that adopt the identity wholesale.

    You may be surprised to learn that even among Maoist, they have their personal philosophies and Maoism just makes for a reasonable caricature- some details are lost but the general resemblance is close enough.

    And as it is with libertarians, except even the horrendous crimes of the Maoist are more palatable than the bug-fuckery that is mainstream libertarianism.

    The purity tests aren't helping your cause.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The purity tests aren't helping your cause.

    ALL the doofuses say that a DEFINITION os a purity test.
    And I cited two original sources.
    Anything else?

    That's now THIRTEEN proving my point at the top!

  • Qsl||

    Then you are too dense to figure out there is a difference between public and private personas, and most people (you might be the exception) are infinitely complex in their motivations. I meaning taking the NAP to its logical extreme is a complete endorsement of SJWs... oh, nevermind; you're there already.

    Privately, I may hold that blacks are worse than dogs, and publicly hold very libertarian stances as that acts as a buffer against my private beliefs as burning crosses is so unfashionable these days.

    Very few of any ideology accept it whole-hog. That libertarians demand it is just a charming naïveté or a manifestation of their autism; I'm never certain which.

  • Michael Hihn||

    taking the NAP to its logical extreme is a complete endorsement of SJWs... oh, nevermind; you're there already.

    Social Justice Warriors vs Religious/Political Justice Warriors,
    flip sides of the same authoritarian coin

    Each conducting a modern (un)Holy Inquisition.
    Each dedicated warriors against …. the greatest evil of all time! (gasp)
    Each is motivated by self-righteous zeal, driven by raging hatred,
    thus eager to be exploited

    (they) do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)

    They commit endless aggressions … justified in defense of some "greater good."
    Hustlers – liberty, faith and social – find their cults eager to be manipulated, eager to be exploited by their blind faith. "WE ARE WARRIORS – MORALLY SUPERIOR -- TRUE BELIEVERS."

    They've committed the worst moral atrocities of human history. Always in the name of some "greater good" -- the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party, a Movement or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous. The haters. - Mike Hihn (1994)
  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I find Hihn's commentary to usually be reasonable. But nothing ever seems to be gained from your dialogue, it's always comments of detraction, you swoop in to smear. Maybe smearing is needed? But I name you Gandalf Stormcrow anyway.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You'd be mad, too, if you were so crazy you got kicked out of the Libertarian Party.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The bullsitting aggression goes totally insane!. AGAIN proves me correct here:
    http://reason.com/archives/201.....nt_6904289

    You'd be mad, too, if you were so crazy you got kicked out of the Libertarian Party.

    Pathetic fucking liar

    Media response as LIBERTARIAN candidate for WA State Insurance Commissioner.
    Campaign theme: Freedom works!

    1. There are two prices involved: drugs and insurance. Deregulating health insurance will greatly increase the number of insured families. But drug prices would be beyond my control, and another candidate seems to agree. He would form nongovernmental buying co-ops. Great idea, but why must we elect him first?

    2. Deregulate. Open your Yellow Pages. Compare the number of health insurers with the number of auto and home insurers. Then ask yourself which insurance is the most highly regulated - but offers the fewest choices, with out-of-control prices. As you can see, over-regulation is hazardous to your health.

    3. Insurers have legitimate concerns regarding fraudulent health histories from applicants. But insurance applicants can now be forced to choose between living and lying when new jobs require them to change carriers. Deregulate for portable coverage. ((Actually done in 1996))
  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    That's some coldblooded sheit.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Then I remember, he's old and he'll be dead soon...

    Bein' nothin' but him.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The first post is usually so, or at least within a standard deviation, but the vast majority of comment threads he's involved in aren't worth the time to read.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    It is a meticulous and lengthy tit for tat on both sides.

  • Longtobefree||

    Sexual harassment!! You said tit!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Hihn tends to react to any response, even mild sarcasm or actual agreement, with hysterical displays of thin-skinned, abusive, pointlessly BOLDED word-salad. This has ensured that most Hit'n'Run regulars go after him on sight, like a fat kid after a Twinkie.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Wait, even I recognize and avoid him. Am I a regular now? Shit. I feel unclean now. Is this how Catholics feel?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    One of us! One of us!

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Internet abusers specifically targeting women

    jeebus fucking petes don't ruin the internets too...lighten the fuck up.

    words. cannot. be. controlled.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Everybody knows that women are too stupid to even participate in the kind of intense internet debates that lead to online abuse.

    /ducks and runs in a serpentine pattern

  • Lester224||

    Maybe I should experimentally change my online handle to Leslie224 and see if the reaction to comments changes. So far it's been reasonable. I happen to like sarcasm.

  • Dillinger||

    fuck you, Leslie224.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Those sandwiches aren't going to make themselves.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    TITS or GTFO!

  • XenoZooValentine||

    *flashes glorious man-boobs*

    They're real, and they're spectacular.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    yo u wanna lemmee hit it

  • Sevo||

    This thread was guaranteed to be hinhfected.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The internet is the real world. If you spout the "wrong" politics or wear the "wrong" t-shirt in certain venues, bars, neighborhoods, etc. There are going to be assholes that confront you. No reason to believe that would be any different on certain websites and I think we expect it to be worse because of the anonymity.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    There is really no way to massage the Pew data to fit the women-as-victim narrative—but some tried.

    *rolls eyes* Of course they did, there's a narrative to promote.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    As a personal anecdote describing my own internet experiences. When I was 16 I used the words 'Nigger" and "faggot" a lot in very crude and mean ways on World of Warcraft. Trolling passed with age.

    Different point in the same vein; a few months back I had a very favorable commentary towards new Reason writer Christian Britschgi -- but that was because I read the name as "Christina" once I realized my mistake all positive feeling reverted to neutrality towards Mr. Britschgi.

    You can take the above as an example of "men are dogs" or an example of "men actually want to be nice to women" for obvious reasons online or offline.

  • Number 7||

    that's because you thought you had a chance, right? Admit it, guys think highly of a female because they think that they just might possibly have a chance.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Actually no, I just interact differently with men and women. It's not about getting laid, I do love a flirty atmosphere without needing it to have any real chance of becoming more. I recognize in myself that I am more patient and considerate with women. Condescending chivalry or my pops raising me to never cuss around girls? A bit of both no doubt. Take it for what it's worth (not much) but it's true of my own experiences.

    As the ancient precept instructs -- "Know thyself".

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's funny, I scrolled through the comments really fast, saw a bunch of bolding in the middle and thought "Oh great, I bet this thread has been Hihnfected."

    Turns out I was right.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Self-defense, chump

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Michael, I would just ignore most of it. You're never going to back them down, so there's not much point squabbling with them. You would be better served by calmly making your points and letting them stand for themselves.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    All I know is chicks suck at logic and videogames.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    And math. And fixing cars.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We know that there is power in victimhood. Why do these researchers who of course are men have to rob women of their power? I think we all know the answer.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    Anti-Russian propaganda imo.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Is that a micro-aggression against Russians or anti-Russians?

  • Meh.||

    These comments are exactly as annoying as I was expecting. Loved the article though, especially the last 2 paragraphs.

  • MaleMatters||

    Feminists who distort the facts on harassment, etc. = liberals.
    Liberals = Democrats.
    Democrats = this:

    "Republicans don't have near as big a woman problem as Democrats have a man problem." -Wall Street Journal
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/ki.....1412900814

    And this:

    "The whole Democratic Party is now a smoking pile of rubble: In state government things are worse, if anything. The GOP now controls a historical record number of governors' mansions, including a majority of New England governorships. Tuesday's election swapped around a few state legislative houses but left Democrats controlling a distinct minority. The same story applies further down ballot, where most elected attorneys general, insurance commissioners, secretaries of state, and so forth are Republicans." http://www.vox.com/policy-and-.....ile-rubble

    And this:

    "The Democratic Party is viewed as more out of touch than either Trump or the party's political opponents. Two-thirds of Americans think the Democrats are out of touch — including nearly half of Democrats themselves. ...a large chunk of Democrats feel that their party is united in a vision … that's at odds with the concerns of the American public." -Washington Post
    https://archive.is/SAj6w

  • Michael Hihn||

    (lol) Selective quoting is the surest proof of a goober,

    Same source
    "When it comes to the Republican Party, the numbers are a bit worse. Sixty-two percent of Americans, and 30 percent of Republicans themselves, think that the GOP is out of touch with the concerns of most people in the United States."

    Pay attention. A growing majority of Americans reject loyalty to BOTH parties. But goobers in both tribes beat their chests, bellow a lot, and believe they're a majority!

    (they) do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers." - Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)

    They commit endless aggressions … justified in defense of some "greater good."
    Hustlers – for liberty, faith or social – find their cults eager to be manipulated, eager to be exploited by their blind faith. "WE ARE WARRIORS – MORALLY SUPERIOR -- TRUE BELIEVERS."

    They've committed the worst moral atrocities of human history. Always in the name of some "greater good" -- the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party, a Movement or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous. The haters. - Mike Hihn (1994)
  • XenoZooValentine||

    Everybody knows that sitting quietly in the front row of a panel and politely listening is targeted horsemint, but yelling like a crazy bag lady at that person and calling him a "garbage human" isn't. Duh.

    Also, if you've been following the Alex Mauer DMCA rampage and related hijinx, now the usual clickbait sites are pushing the horsemint narrative about that too.

  • ||

    Truly sad... Unfortunately, these are just the norms of today...

    "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."
    (2 Timothy 3:1-5; 13)

    The Good News is:

    "When the wicked sprout like weeds And all the wrongdoers flourish, It is that they may be annihilated forever." (Psalms 92:7)

    -According to Chronology, the Bible is 3,500 years old, & if you doubt this, go to a *Museum not the Internet. The Bible has been translated into about 2,600 languages, and billions of copies printed & distribute. More than 90 percent of the people in the world can read the Bible in their own language. And each week, more than a million people get a Bible! Yes, there is no other book like the Bible. Have a Bible question?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Have a Bible question?

    Several.
    1) Is that the same Bible where God ordered the mass genocide of an entire civilization, the Canaanites?
    2) Where God orders the immediate killing of all infidels, including one's own brother, spouse, child or friend?
    3( Where women must be stoned to death, if they were not a virgin on their wedding day? (No such rule for males)
    4) Where Christ preaches submission to aggressors? (It was the Third Testament, where Muhammad taught the virtue of self-defense against violence.)
    5) Where God l punishes sins upon children, grandchildren. great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of the sinner?

    THAT Bible?

    Yes, there is no other book like the Bible.

    Thank goodness!
    Of all those Bible owners, why are so many clueless of its contents?
    Why do so many place their own will ABOVE the Will of Almighty God -- and decide for themselves which of His rules to obey and which to ignore? Of all the ones who cite the Bible on homosexuals ... how many IGNORE the four points I listed? Might THAT be why so many own a Bible? Because they can each create their own version of Holy Scripture? Is that how Christ described pagans and hypocrites?

    And in my Bible, Christ also taught to never make a public spectacle of one's faith. Like the pagans do. Right?

  • Longtobefree||

    So is the article only using 'men' and 'women' in a sentence containing the word 'gender' harassment?
    If so, to which sex?
    If not, why not?

  • Michael Hihn||

    So is the article only using 'men' and 'women' in a sentence containing the word 'gender' harassment?

    No. Because the article doesn't do that

    If so, to which sex?

    Neither,

    If not, why not?

    Because the article doesn't do that.

  • Stanllow||

    Wow, so be it. Once upon a time, dinosaurs roam the earth. lol

  • John C. Randolph||

    two-thirds of women for more safety.

    Right, because people are so much safer under governments that suppress speech.

    -jcr

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online