Internet abuse culture is a tech industry problem

[mjg59]

After Jesse Frazelle blogged about the online abuse she receives, a common reaction in various forums[1] was "This isn't a tech industry problem - this is what being on the internet is like"[2]. And yes, they're right. Abuse of women on the internet isn't limited to people in the tech industry. But the severity of a problem is a product of two separate factors: its prevalence and what impact it has on people.

Much of the modern tech industry relies on our ability to work with people outside our company. It relies on us interacting with a broader community of contributors, people from a range of backgrounds, people who may be upstream on a project we use, people who may be employed by competitors, people who may be spending their spare time on this. It means listening to your users, hearing their concerns, responding to their feedback. And, distressingly, there's significant overlap between that wider community and the people engaging in the abuse. This abuse is often partly technical in nature. It demonstrates understanding of the subject matter. Sometimes it can be directly tied back to people actively involved in related fields. It's from people who might be at conferences you attend. It's from people who are participating in your mailing lists. It's from people who are reading your blog and using the advice you give in their daily jobs. The abuse is coming from inside the industry.

Cutting yourself off from that community impairs your ability to do work. It restricts meeting people who can help you fix problems that you might not be able to fix yourself. It results in you missing career opportunities. Much of the work being done to combat online abuse relies on protecting the victim, giving them the tools to cut themselves off from the flow of abuse. But that risks restricting their ability to engage in the way they need to to do their job. It means missing meaningful feedback. It means passing up speaking opportunities. It means losing out on the community building that goes on at in-person events, the career progression that arises as a result. People are forced to choose between putting up with abuse or compromising their career.

The abuse that women receive on the internet is unacceptable in every case, but we can't ignore the effects of it on our industry simply because it happens elsewhere. The development model we've created over the past couple of decades is just too vulnerable to this kind of disruption, and if we do nothing about it we'll allow a large number of valuable members to be driven away. We owe it to them to make things better.

[1] Including Hacker News, which then decided to flag the story off the front page because masculinity is fragile

[2] Another common reaction was "But men get abused as well", which I'm not even going to dignify with a response

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Jesse Frazelle's article was a whole new level of disturbing with which I had not previously become acquainted. I'm glad I saw it (via Twitter, with appropriate warning labels attached). I knew that people (and I use the term loosely) in the tech industry were sick, but I didn't know just how sick. It amazes and impresses me that she was willing to talk about it and call attention to it, in an effort to help others.

Regarding HN: As much as people talk about "filter bubbles" (which is not that much, really, but DuckDuckGo made it a thing with a convenient name), people like Google for giving them what they want and hiding from them what they don't want. Is it broken that HN hides things that an apparently significant subset of its members aren't interested in, or is the brokenness that there are people in HN that aren't interested in it? I'd tend to believe the latter (and in particular that the subset of people is the same as the subset who leave awful comments); the former is the result of showing people what they want to see and hiding what they don't.

At least when articles like this hit HN, it seems like there's a substantial number of people downvoting and flagging the awful comments they attract. The fact that such comments don't tend to get upvoted gives me some hope that, while HN contains many awful people, the good ones outnumber the bad.

(To clarify: HN clearly has a serious issue they need to eliminate. I'm not questioning that they have a problem; the evidence doesn't lie. I'm asking what the right way to eliminate it is, and I'm wondering if the right solution involves changing people rather than algorithms. Because in the end, it's always about people, the communities they construct, and the other people they put up with in those communities. I've seen enough good things come out of HN that I'd like to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater^Wraw sewage.)

[jewelfox]

This is actually a very good point, IMO.

FAQs filter out questions. People name and shame logical fallacies to keep arguments from being derailed. Geek Feminism has a whole wiki of common responses to reports of abuse which are known to be / proven unhelpful. I personally have clinical PTSD, and rely on a number of "filter bubbles" to protect my sanity and ability to function.

I feel that the filtering going on at HN is slightly different though, because it comes from a place of willful ignorance, of easily verifiable knowledge which would undermine their whole way of life. They aren't choosing not to rehash stuff they already know (and/or know to be unhelpful), they are choosing to put their convenience and privilege ahead of other people's basic needs.

It's important to acknowledge the difference, I think, if you want to try to fix the brokenness.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree completely. Filter bubbles in general are not necessarily a bad thing. Personal filter bubbles are even less likely to be an issue, as they reflect the values of the specific person maintaining them; they're no more or less problematic than the values they protect. However, the more people inside the bubble, and the fewer people it takes to keep something out of the bubble, the more likely it is that the bubble is implicitly reinforcing a set of values that many people inside the bubble would not agree with if stated explicitly.

As mentioned in my parenthetical at the end, I think HN has multiple serious problems in its community. I'm interested in how to fix it.

There are a pile of commenters demonstrating both active and institutional sexism. While they do typically get downvoted and occasionally flagged (though rarely enough to disappear completely), they're not actually removed from the community, and thus they retain their ability to upvote/downvote/flag. (And the institutional sexism sometimes passes unnoticed when it manages to honey its words enough to be subtle and sound plausible.) It doesn't take many flags to bury a story, so all it would take is a few of those people systematically flagging stories to cause the effect that Matthew has repeatedly called out. And thus HN's filter bubble filters out stories about how bad online abuse is, how broken the tech community is, or how to fix it. (The stories that get through the bubble tend to be the positive success stories, which compounds the problem by making the situation look better than it is.)

It's one thing to systematically filter out all discussion of social/community issues as off-topic. That would be understandable and defensible; not all forums need to support discussion of all topics. However, it's pretty clear from the comments that that's not the whole story at HN; there's clearly a set of people who specifically target any stories about sexism and gender-specific issues. And while HN has progressed enough to call out and squash outright "brogrammer" garbage, they're years behind in terms of understanding and dealing with the institutional versions, as well as in having an explicit understanding of even the 101-level issues (e.g. no, the police will not track down and arrest people for online abuse; no, attempting to creating a meritocracy doesn't actually result in one; no, a code of conduct does not mean you can't tell someone how their patch is broken).

[(Anonymous)]

> Is it broken that HN hides things that an apparently significant subset of its members aren't interested in, or is the brokenness that there are people in HN that aren't interested in it?

While conversations about sexual equality and oppression *are* *important*, they are not appropriate for *every* forum. There *need* to be *some* forums that are largely free from such topics. Why?

I've been on Metafilter for a loooooooong time. I've been on HN for -Jesus- nearly five years. I've seen how the free proliferation of rabid Social Justice Warriors changed most discourse on Metafilter from a civil -and sometimes enlightening- meeting of folks with often wildly differing viewpoints to a shaming, browbeating, pile-on of anyone who happens to represent (or tacitly support) the Monster of the Week.

The few sexual equality/oppression articles that *do* make it to the front page of HN don't create any better conversation than happens on Metafilter. I'm fairly convinced that discussion of such topics in soft-moderated forums comprised entirely of random pseudonymous people is bound to be troubling, frustrating, and profoundly unproductive. (Much like the comments section of most any article on most any newspaper's website.)

Sexist Internet Blowhards are pretty much never going to be converted by being told how and why they're wrong by Random Internet Strangers. They require -like anyone else with unpleasant deep-seated habits- gentle, constant, corrective pressure over long periods of time.

This sort of correction is (to my knowledge) *never* found in the comments section attached to sexual equality articles. What *is* typically found in such comments are re-hashes of the same old arguments, with proponents and opponents fighting past each other for the nth time.

For those of us who try to spend a large amount of our down-time learning, and those of us who are drained by the injustices of the world, running into the same old fights and arguments when we were instead seeking new knowledge saps us of our will to learn and create. This is deeply unfair to those of us who *already* understand what we must do to help create a more fair and equitable society.

Perhaps some might think it fair that a generation of the Socially Privileged Classes has their psyche perpetually worn at by the plight of the less fortunate, and their time tithed in support of those same unfortunates. However, this doesn't seem to comport with the message of social justice and equality that I see the more moderate of the Social Justice folks advancing.

It *is* right and proper to -over time- correct Sexism, Racism, and all the other -isms. But, even the most stalwart crusaders for a cause need a place to rest, recuperate, and pursue their hobbies in peace.

This is not a social justice problem, this is an communication/education problem

[(Anonymous)]

> For those of us who try to spend a large amount of our down-time learning, and those of us who are drained by the injustices of the world, running into the same old fights and arguments when we were instead seeking new knowledge saps us of our will to learn and create. This is deeply unfair to those of us who *already* understand what we must do to help create a more fair and equitable society.

This is not a unique problem to social justice, this is a problem about large groups with information asymmetry more generally. September is still not over: every year millions of people get added to the internet, get old enough to enter academia, and in general -- become members of the global conversation and system of thinking beings on earth. Every year those millions have to pick up the beginning markers of discussions that have been going on for a *long time*. And unfortunately, some of us have to participate in that.

Threaded conversation is miraculously better that flat conversation, which is better than the combination of paper and your local community, in terms of allowing viewpoints to both be present on complex issues, and for large groups to coherently converse, but the problem comes when we get to the point where complex threads have been gone over, as you point out, for the nth time, and we statistically speaking speak past eachother more often than not.

There is a tradeoff between allowing for diverse viewpoints in a global conversation, and filtering those who don't know that what they are trying to say has been said a thousand times before, and the learning that comes along with those very same rehashed arguments in practice. A tradeoff between having the ability to learn, as a group, and the ability to communicate, as a group, on the order of millions at least.

One thing's for sure: subreddits fails after the first million users or two. Splitting back into subcultures that interact haphazardly doesn't work: we end up talking mostly about pictures of cats, and technical forums become a clusterfsck of drama.

I think part of the problem is who owns the commanding heights, right now -- reddit has tools for detecting high level patterns in conversations -- meme detection. Instead of using these tools to resolve these complex, multi-million person arguments, they are currently used for the benefit of advertisers.

There's little glimpses of what the next step could be, but no whole picture. In the bitcoin subreddit, someone wrote a bot for the purposes of identifying sockpuppets, which failed miserably at its task but which actually succeeded at pairing users together who had different opinions on the same topic but who thought most similar to eachother. Think of it as a kind of meiosis of ideas -- after the community found itself in a position where it was too big to make progress on a complex issue, and the issue wasn't going away, what *could* have happened would be a splitting of the issue into a bipartite graph, with the two sides of the graph being the two sides of the issue, and the links being between those who had the best chance of being at the level of understanding/wavelength. This kind of tool has never been used at scale to solve social justice problems.

We won't know whether it could work unless it could be credibly tried.

[(Anonymous)]

> After Jesse Frazelle blogged about the online abuse she receives, a common reaction in various forums[1] was "This isn't a tech industry problem - this is what being on the internet is like"[2].

It amazes me how often I hear this from people in tech whose work has a significant impact on shaping the experience of being on the internet. You can’t be all “I work in tech so I can bend the world to my will” and also “lawl what do you want, the internet is just like the weather, no one can control it and it’s super shitty sometimes”. I suspect what people mean is “social stuff is complicated and I don’t want to take responsibility for it”.

It seems to me that the best way to fix the internet is to fix the culture of the people who make the internet. But, y’know, human nature is bad and terrible, and the internet is a giant garbage fire, and these things just are and must be true forever. So.

- neverett

[mjg59]

[(Anonymous)]

This. Social problems are *hard*, both on an absolute scale and relative to writing code. "Code is law", sure, and you can solve (or create) *some* problems with code, but some things need fixing at the societal level.

Random example (not realistic, just a thought experiment): how would the situation change if, rather than our current world in which online harassment is ignored, what if it *could* be prosecuted as easily as it should be? What if it *was* treated as a crime with real-world "ruin your life" consequences? That would take massive work to actually put in place. Would it actually address an appreciable fraction of the problem? (I'd guess that there's a set of people who would go to greater lengths to hide, and there's a set of people who would say "you know what, no, I don't want to go to prison in the name of being a dick on the Internet".)

What steps *could* we take, socially, to actually eradicate these problems at the source? What would it take to stop awful people completely, not just blocking them or protecting others from them but making them *stop*?

[jewelfox]

I think one big thing that would help is for people who have social power and capital to use it.

If you're a guy who works in tech, for instance, you can impose social (or other) consequences for abusive behaviour which don't require going through the broken criminal justice system. Even if it's as simple as letting people know "That's not okay, don't do that."

[vlion]

the basic problem I have here is this: this should be a police matter. if these messages were sent via postal mail, the police would be involved, and there would be a solution in play which would - in the best case - wind up in a courtroom as a criminal case.

how does this get played out in the online realm? I'm not really very knowledgable about 'policing online'.

[mjg59]

Some of the abuse clearly rises to criminal levels, but not all of it does. Merely punting the issue over to law enforcement potentially improves the situation[1], but it doesn't solve it - there's plenty of non-criminal abuse that still reaches a level that discourages people from putting up with this shit.

[1] But not necessarily - involving police isn't an automatic mechanism for making things better, and there are plenty of cases where a victim going to the police has ended up making things worse in the long run

[vlion]

Sure, there are... issues... with the cops. But those issues are largely orthogonal to the fact that "person needs to be criminally charged". There's a very clear limit when the cold arm of the law is around, and I'm not persuaded that the arm of the law really reaches meaningful levels on online-only threats ... and I think it should. Non-blustering[1] death threats should draw down the law upon the threatener's head.


But let's take that as a boundary and note the range of expression between 'harsh criticism' and 'unprotected speech': it's not a pleasant thing to be on the end of. Hateful jackassery is actually free speech.

My suspicion - having been on the internet for almost twenty years now - is that there's not a great deal that can be *done*. The WSJ comment section used to demand "real name" and, I think, photo. I don't recall anymore. You would not believe the things that were said by professionals about political subjects. /b/ was hardly worse. Pseudonymity does not make the matter worse.

I can behave a perfect gentleman at work and under my work alias, but at home, I can switch my alias to JackAssH4ter and spew for hours. How do you solve that problem without some *significant* levels of intrusion & social coercion? I imagine if I went to any other social situation and did the same, I'd be removed and asked not to come back. Although there have always been creepy stalkers offline as well...

Thoughts?

[1] i.e., words with intent

[mjg59]

Hateful jackassery may well be free speech, but tolerating it within a community is a choice made by that community. When there are no consequences to this kind of behaviour, when there are few community leaders willing to set a precedent by speaking out about it, it'll continue unchecked simply because the apparent state of affairs is that it is acceptable. There's plenty of non-anonymous abuse that we're doing nothing about.

[(Anonymous)]

It would be nice to fix law enforcement so that it dealt with more of these issues. However, it's not acceptable to just say that it should be a law enforcement issue and do nothing more about it; it isn't handled by law enforcement, and to the extent you have the power to do something about it yourself you should.

Stupid is stupid

[(Anonymous)]

Ignorance is one thing, wilful and sustained ignorance is another. The latter, whether it's directed at a gender, gender preference,or race - is self destructive. It's the equivalent of taking a dump upstream. I'm no fan of any religion either - but I don't propose the world would be better without it, it's possible that many need it (perfect is the enemy of good?).

Take women for instance - everyone had a mother, many a sister, and it's unlikely that any will live a life where it's quality at some time won't be determined by the actions or beliefs of a woman.

There will always be injustice and inequality, but that's no reason not to redress the balance - nor is it justification for more stupidity i.e. we are all equal (then why can't I reach the same shelves as you?); we are all the same (so is evolution horizontal?).

The greatest failings of bigotry (IMO) is to suppose that anyone is in a position to judge who is of greater worth - only history may be able to decide that; and that all questions can be reduced to simple arguments (simple is a synonym for dumb).

In an increasingly interconnected world there is less and less excuse for sustained wilful ignorance. Those that claim they are only aping the actions of their peers can only be excused if we suppose that the world if perfect and there is no need for improvement. To do otherwise is, likely, only to lower the standard until the world we live in becomes that of the Iron Ages - and the civilisation we all enjoy (no matter how much we complain of it's failings) becomes a desert populated by sheep and goat herders whose views are laws that must never be challenged or questioned.

That's not to say that the "tech" world shouldn't take a lead - we have, with our daily connection with people of all types all over the globe, and access to many views of history - *less* excuse than others for sustained, wilful ignorance.

Self-awareness and self-education are only part of a possible solution. I propose that the hardest tasks are upsetting others i.e. "don't feed the trolls" serves no constructive purpose and IMO is the equivalent of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping we'll be left alone. Dealing with trolls is not as simple as just replying or attacking.
Likewise dealing with those who attack women - you will offend someone in the process, even if, quite fairly, some women will complain that if it's a man doing the defending, they are being patronising. In lieu of a perfect solution I suggest it's better to do something than nothing (the greatest evil being to look the other way and encourage the wilfully stupid, by allowing them to interpret your silence as meaning support). Light, knowledge (and humour) is the enemy of stupid.
[/rant]

Kind regards, thanks for another informative and interesting article Matthew, SFITCS

Re: Stupid is stupid

[jewelfox]

In my experience, the people who call male feminists "patronizing" are usually other men who don't like being told they did something awful. I actually saw someone accused of "white knighting" on a Warhammer 40,000 blog, once, where I'm fairly sure there weren't too many women around for them to impress.

If a woman does call you out for being patronizing, the thing to do is to learn why she said that and then do your best to avoid that mistake in the future. Treat it as thought it were code that did not compile, and rewrite the code instead of blaming the compiler.

Re: Stupid is stupid

[(Anonymous)]

My experience is not much different than yours - but it still doesn't change the point I was "trying" to make. The right thing to do is defend the rights of others - but it doesn't preclude the right of others to say "no thanks - I don't want you to speak for me". I believe it's a mistake to automatically presume that if someone objects to me speaking on their behalf that blame *must* be attributed to someone - sure I'm happy to hear their opinions. It's a stock phrase but true none-the-less "you can't please everyone, the best you can do is please yourself".
There is no stock reaction that will please everyone - sometimes doing the "right" thing means eschewing an expectation for respect and/or credit. My personal belief is that the right thing to do is usually, do something.

Re: Stupid is stupid

[(Anonymous)]

> Take women for instance - everyone had a mother, many a sister, and it's unlikely that any will live a life where it's quality at some time won't be determined by the actions or beliefs of a woman.

I think you're approaching this from a dangerously wrong angle. It sounds like you're suggesting that people shouldn't attack women because they might find themselves in a position where women have power over them. I really hope that's not what you meant.

Re: Stupid is stupid

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect you're misinterpreting what I said - put that down to my poor writing skills if you like. I used the term quality, and meant quality - not feelings of security or need for superior position. Please view it in the offered context - bigotry is stupid. I gave an example of a common type of bigotry found in my culture - misogyny, it can equally apply to any "group".
Those that judge any group to be of lesser merit are bigots - to do so lowers the quality of their lives. Which is stupid.
I could say that "flat-earthers" are of lesser merit. While it's (possibly) true in the context of choosing astrophysists - it's stupid in other contexts. Bigots paint with a broad brush. Whether or not I'm ever in a position where flat-earthers have power over me is besides the point - it denies them any other merits (whether I recognise the merits or not). Which, IMO, is stupid.

I hope that helps clarify any misunderstandings.

Kind regards, SFITCS

Re: Stupid is stupid

[(Anonymous)]

It's perfectly fine to say that anyone who believes the earth is flat has little value to offer to anyone, and that their opinions should be discounted across the board.

And I'm suggesting that bigotry is wrong whether it harms the bigot or not. It's extra stupid if it harms the bigot, but it's wrong even in the sadly common case where it does not.

[jewelfox]

A fear of online abuse is part of the reason I share my identity experiences and ideas about radical equality on Dreamwidth, instead of getting eaten on Tumblr. ^^; I've already seen multiple women get driven off of that site, people I considered passionate and articulate, one of whom seems to have disappeared off of the Internet altogether. I miss her.

Another problem is simply not acknowledging women's contributions. In the free software world, for instance, things like outreach and documentation are often seen as "women's work" and are much less prestigious than coding.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, of course ^^; I guess I just feel that, in my personal experience this is the case ... I was an advocate of one particular decision I felt would make GNOME development more accessible, and spent a lot of time blogging about it on Planet GNOME and creating tutorials and wiki pages. And then a few months later the decision-makers apparently had that same idea independently, and did not acknowledge me or any of the work that I'd already done on it under the aegis of the Outreach Program. Except to say that it was incomplete.

I'm pretty sure I discussed this with you awhile ago already. >_>; It was ... kind of an eye-opener for me, though. In a lot of ways.

Credit

[(Anonymous)]

... And then a few months later the decision-makers apparently had that same idea independently, and did not acknowledge me or any of the work that I'd already done on it under the aegis of the Outreach Program.

Which reminds me of many pieces of home-brew wisdom I received as a child "respect and credit is often the price of success". Another I value, which may not be relevant to your case was, "choose carefully whose opinions you make yourself a prisoner of".

My grandmother never lived to know the internet - but I find her advice transfers to the medium.

SFITCS

reply to this funny article from a woman IT professional

[(Anonymous)]

what a funny article.
This typical mangina line of this article - "Another common reaction was "But men get abused as well", which I'm not even going to dignify with a response" - sums it up all. What a sexism?

This author, will not even acknowledge that this problem exist for males, but he will cry a river for the same thing - if a woman receives the same thing. These kind of weirdo sexists make me worry a lot.

This geek feminism was supposed to bring females positively into IT fold, but it did what its sister of feminazism had done. It turned it into professional victimhood. They will daily theorise as "If some industry has lesser number of females, then it has to be due to some kind of systematic victimhood of females in IT".
Then if medical nursing has lot of lesser number of males, then does it indicate some kind of victimhood of males in that profession.
What was expected as bringing some positivity in environment, has been turned into blame game by these professional victims a.k.a Feminazist and their companion manginas.

This victimhood crap is increasing in redhat and fedora communities, these feminists have brought there negativity all around.
There have been wonderful women and men in IT, there are wonderful women and men around in life. And remember women and feminists are not synonymous.
There are lots of women against feminists and their crap. This includes myself. And other examples are
http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juR74OYiegY
http://kristalgarcia.wordpress.com

Message for this author: Rather than projecting yourself - 'as some kind of alpha male trying to save us females' - , it would be better to try to make your workplace positively. Don't get into false statistics and propagandas of these negativities. Men and women were and are complimentory, not some kind of enemies/competitors.
This world is not perfect. There are many problems being faced by men, many problems being faced by women. Problems of both need to be heard and solved. Trying to say that only one gender faces problems and not the other, makes you blind chauvinist of that gender, and nothing else.
I hope you understood - what equalism actually means

Re: reply to this funny article from a woman IT professional

[mjg59]

This author, will not even acknowledge that this problem exist for males

Because it doesn't. Men do not receive the same level of sustained harassment merely for being a visible member of a technical community. I've never been threatened with violence or death, despite being (if anything) higher profile than Jesse Frazelle. It doesn't happen on anything like the same scale, and attempting to equate the two is clearly inaccurate.

Then if medical nursing has lot of lesser number of males, then does it indicate some kind of victimhood of males in that profession.

I don't know if you know any male nurses (I do), but yeah, there are issues in the nursing profession. But a large part of it is that nursing is considered a significantly less prestigious profession than other branches of medicine, and the stereotypes influence who applies in the first place. It's strange that nursing is such a go-to comparison in this kind of discussion, because it's accepted that there's a problem there and people are working to increase the representation of men.

Trying to say that only one gender faces problems and not the other, makes you blind chauvinist of that gender, and nothing else.

Many of the problems in the technology industry disproportionately affect women, while few (if any) disproportionately affect men. I'm choosing to spend my time working on the former. If you'd like to work on the latter, feel free!

I hope you understood - what equalism actually means

It's a made up word that implies that there's no pervasive sexism in society, and as such it's a denial of reality. Hope that helps!

Re: reply to this funny article from a woman IT professional

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah right, scumbag. People aren't harassing Lennart Poettering because they didn't like his software. James Damore is able to try to ask questions without being fired. You can just do everything you want when you're a man. Even an unbiased discussion is beyond you, you blithering loser.

"because masculinity is fragile"

[(Anonymous)]

"because masculinity is fragile" - reminded me of a really amazing paper I read a while ago, by Robin DiAngelo of UNCG...

http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249/116

"White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility."

STFU

[(Anonymous)]

Dude get the fuck out with this "I am technically worthless so I'm going to try to market myself on supposedly edgy social skills". You're below those schmucks that go around trying to defraud companies by hijacking the CEOs email - those at least sometimes succeed.

The "victims" you defend are equally worthless. Once they get over their overinflated stupid egos already, they might have something to contribute, but that seems improbable.

Just go back to whatever mom's basement you crawled out of, it's not that the world isn't missing anything by your absence - it's that the world would pay good money for you to not even exist in the first place.