[rturben]

This was a very well-written article. Though I haven't followed any of this person's journey that she's recounting and can't simply trust her retelling of what happened (based on the fact that I really don't know anything about weev or Kathy or their online presences), she hits on something important. It's shocking how numb a lot of internet culture is toward "trolling" or otherwise hateful statements.

Nobody goes around in public threatening to rape or murder strangers. This might seem naive, but honestly, why is this tolerable by so many people if the words are said on the internet rather than on the streets?

It's not pretend. These are REAL people that are being subjected to threats that at least aren't innocent and at worst are also real. People's intuition of "free speech" seems to be warped here. Should it be okay to type these things to someone? Would it be okay if you called them and said it over the phone? What if you said it to their face? Mailed it to them in a letter? Does the medium change the message?

I'm just tired of the "nut up or shut up" attitude that a lot of the internet seems to overflow with.

[zzzeek]

> Though I haven't followed any of this person's journey that she's recounting and can't simply trust her retelling of what happened (based on the fact that I really don't know anything about weev or Kathy or their online presences),

saying this is so unnecessary. The harassment Kathy has received is widely documented, for years. Do a little googling up front instead of unnecessarily dishing out assorted seeds of doubt.

[rturben]

The intent of the sentence was to point out that her article is important because it speaks out about something that's outrageous, regardless of if the reader knows who is writing it.

I did google both of them, and read some of her other blog posts. I'm not going to proclaim though that I really understand what's happening after 25 minutes on google. It's irrelevant to her deeper point.

[golgappi]

Like you, even I was unaware of her and the incidents in the past. I read this post last night and thought its just another post by a woman in tech seeking attention. However, saw the comments here and decided to read more about her, and now I feel sad.

I think it makes more sense to know who whom this is coming from, what she has suffered rather than someone who was never a victim writing about it.

[ChiperSoft]

> This might seem naive, but honestly, why is this tolerable by so many people if the words are said on the internet rather than on the streets?

It isn't tolerated, but there is no recourse for response. Words said on the streets can be met with physical response, meaning directly removing the offending individual by force, or even physically harming them for their behavior.

Words said online can only be met by moderator response, which is always delayed, easily shrugged off and rarely an actual punishment.

[rturben]

I guess it's just concerning that the people who would say this kind of stuff online don't think about what they're doing. They wouldn't say it to someone's face, isn't it common sense that saying it over a tweet isn't that different?