Posted on | December 11, 2013 | 44 Comments
Probably not, but you never know, and while I generally have zero sympathy for Anonymous, this news is rather troubling:
More than 30 Anonymous-related Twitter accounts, including @Anon_Central, one of the largest with over 150,000 followers, have been suspended by Twitter following a campaign of misogynist abuse aimed at feminist campaigners on the social network.
The four women, Labour MP Stella Creasy, Times columnist Caitlin Moran, freelance journalist Caroline Criado-Perez and campaigner Hannah Curtis, were all named in a document shared by the largest anonymous Twitter account, @YourAnonNews, which claimed that “mentioning these accounts can result in suspension and possible scrutiny for future accounts.” It also claimed that “Perez and Creasy appear to have some direct line to Twitter to get accounts suspended sooner.”
Criado-Perez, who has been the subject of campaigns of misogynist abuse before, says that those claims are nonsense. “I certainly don’t have the power to ban accounts, but I do report accounts that send threats and harass me,” she said. “Sometimes they get suspended and sometimes they don’t.
“I don’t bother reporting accounts that just call me a cunt, which is what they seem to think. Just ones that are directly threatening or are inciting harassment, like the Anonymous accounts have been.”
It’s nice to have this promise from Caroline Criado-Perez that you are free to call her the c-word without fear of being reported, eh?
I have no idea how @Anon_Central got suspended, but using “Twitter gulag” tactics to silence opposition by falsely claiming harassment is a continuing concern and, given the essentially totalitarian impulse of feminism, is this claim by Anonymous really surprising?
At the same time that the “PayPal14″ face felony charges in California for involvement in an Anonymous DDoS campaign in support of WikiLeaks, other Anonymous cells are using their hacktivist energies against feminists who report misogynist harassment on Twitter. . . .
In one document, an Anonymous cell names four women as having “pull” in getting Twitter accounts suspended; two feminist activist groups are also criticised, despite having no such power. This hints that the Anonymous cell’s problem is not feminists with influence over Twitter per se, but the feminist goal of changing attitudes to gendered hate speech. And herein lies a delicate tension: what, for some Anonymous cells, constitutes feminazis instigating an evil Trollocaust against free speech, I understand as activists working with an awareness that rape and harassment don’t happen in a vacuum, but in a cultural climate in which it is OK to intimidate women sexually.
Uh, “the feminist goal of changing attitudes to gendered hate speech“?
What can this possibly mean, except perhaps, “Be nice to girls”?
In case Emer O’Toole, Caroline Criado-Perez and other feminists haven’t noticed, conservative women online are subjected to some of the most hateful language imaginable. You could ask Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Dana Loesch or Katie Pavlich about this.
But perhaps the question you need to be asking is, “Why does Anonymous seem to have a misogyny problem?”
An answer to that question may be as simple as taking a nice long look at the mug shots of the “PayPal 14″ (click image to enlarge):
Twelve of the 14 accused hackers (86%) are male, and what a lovely bunch of fellows, eh? Between the “Living in Mom’s Basement” boys and the “Smoked Too Much Weed” weirdos, you get the general idea that maybe they haven’t enjoyed very active social lives.
Also, notice five of them have the silly “hipster goatee” look.
Of the 12 male suspects, how many of them would you guess have wives and children and mortgages and other adult responsibilities?
It’s a self-selection factor, see? Kinda like the sexual assault problem with the “Occupy” movement: Who wants to camp out in a city park with a bunch of smelly anarchist losers? Chicks don’t dig that scene, and the kind of guys who are attracted to anarchist demonstrations . . . Well, maybe they haven’t enjoyed very active social lives.
This observable pattern may also explain why feminists seem so angry all the time: They’re always hanging out with guys on the Left, who are mostly a bunch of wimps, geeks and freaks. If those creeps were your available choices, wouldn’t you be angry, too?