OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Just Get Over It!

Entry 2393, on 2025-04-09 at 20:00:45 (Rating 4, News)

At irregular intervals an old favourite subject of on-line abuse, especially in the form of misogyny and racism, becomes popular. Here in New Zealand the latest trigger for this discussion has been a study which claims to show that female politicians are being exposed to an increasing number of increasingly severe abuse.

Another current controversy which has made this alleged issue more prominent is the Benjamin Doyle situation. Doyle is a Green Party politician who has been criticised for social media posts which some people claim shows he is either a pedophile or has tendencies of that sort. To defend him from these attacks, the Greens have claimed he has been the subject of abuse and death threats, and have removed him from active duties (he did return, just as I was posting this).

Actually, I just noticed that I called Doyle "him" and his preferred pronoun is "they" I believe, so you can treat that information with whatever significance you wish.

Now, there is no doubt that there can be some "vigorous" debates on-line, and that often extends to genuinely obnoxious comments and sometimes to words which might be seen as the first step towards genuine violence, but equally many of the comments which seem superficially problematic are really just foolish, exaggerated, or hyperbolic for comic effect.

So the question really is: is the attention being brought to these abusive comments about Doyle genuine, or is it just an unprincipled way to divert attention away from the original issue (posts potentially showing pedophilia) to something where the person becomes the victim instead of the perpetrator.

I've got to be fair here and say it is too early to tell in this case. I don't think there is any doubt that the posts I am aware of (which are just a small fraction of the alleged total number of problematic posts) do seem at best unwise, and at worst showing a possibly criminal attitude to children, but there is a range of possible interpretations and I'm not assuming anything at this stage.

And what about the abuse of female politicians? Well, that is social science research and I have made my opinion of that known on several occasions recently. Basically, I don't have high levels of trust for any research of this type. I'm not saying I think it is all false, but I do assume it is inaccurate or false until credible confirmation appears.

I haven't read the research (which is bad, I know, but I accept that weakness in my argument) but here's a few aspects of it which I have heard about and might cause me to be hesitant in accepting it...

First, as I said above, it is social science research, and studies of this type are notorious for their lack of replicability, as well as being susceptible to bias towards what I usually call "woke" political or societal attitudes (practically every social scientist is politically left or far left).

Second, the study was of a small number of people and they weren't selected randomly (as far as I know) so the results are weak because of this. The subjects were likely to have an agenda and therefore not offer a neutral perspective.

Third, the data was all self-reported (again, according to what I have heard about the study) so it consisted of perceptions rather than facts.

Finally, I have only heard descriptions of the conclusions from mainstream media, who tend to only present superficial and biased (RNZ and TVNZ are both massively left biased) so subtle effects in the data are likely being ignored.

People tend to see what they expect to see. When women are asked about their experiences with social media they very likely expect that female politicians will be treated worse than male, and that expectation will often lead to perceptions which might not be accurate.

There is a famous psychological experiment (Kleck and Strenta, 1980 "Perceptions of the impact of negatively valued physical characteristics on social interaction") where some subjects (all women in the original experiment) were asked to record how they were treated by others after having a fake "disfiguring scar" applied to their face. The people with the (fake) scars reported significantly more negativity towards them. But here's the critical point: after having the scars applied and the subjects viewing them in a mirror, the experimenters secretly removed them (by pretending to do some final "touch ups") before the subject interacted with the others.

So the people who though they would be seen and treated more negatively because of the scar (which didn't exist) reported that exact thing. Of course they were treated just like anyone else would be, but their perceptions were very different.

It's entirely possible that women, and other "minority" groups, might be reporting perceptions rather than reality. I'm sure they do get some genuine abuse, but who doesn't? I've seen far more abuse of male public figures than female, which admittedly is an anecdote, but something worth considering. And I have been the target of a lot of abuse myself, including a couple of death threats, from other people on-line. But I know the chance of any genuine danger is very low and that the abusive language is more an indication of defects in the abuser than the target.

So unless there is a very specific and credible threat, such as a person planning a plausible physical attack on a public figure, I say just get over it. One of the most abused people on the internet, Joe Rogan, never reads comments about his posts, and when the sick rantings of his opponents (mostly from the left of politics) are brought to his attention, he just has a good laugh about them.

So in general, I think we should be very suspicious of these claims, although it is possible they are genuine. Credible threats of direct harm are illegal, and I believe the police are investigating one against Doyle, but no one ever quotes the exact form of these threats, so it is difficult to know how genuine they are.

The fact is that, in our divided society, people are likely to make extremely unpleasant comments about politicians. It's just part of the job, whether you are male, female, or something else. My advice is this: report credible claims of physical harm to the police, and for the rest, just get over it!

Comment 2 (7875) by OJB on 2025-04-11 at 18:04:08: (view earlier comments)

Yes, I agree and said so in the post. I am awaiting any further information about the Benjamin Doyle situation, although I suspect it will be forgotten by the media to protect him.

Comment 3 (7876) by Ralph on 2025-04-12 at 10:04:25:

Had never heard of the terminogy used to describe Doyle so never realised what it is supposed to mean. Tragic that this country accepts this life style as normal.

Comment 4 (7877) by OJB on 2025-04-12 at 15:03:21:

It really depends on exactly what his "lifestyle" actually is. If it is just something a bit weird but harmless to others, then I have no problem with it. If it is as bad as some people think, then it is not only immoral but also illegal.

Comment 5 (7878) by Jim Cable on 2025-04-13 at 17:35:53:

As to Doyle's wish to be referred to by the plural pronoun "they", I've long held the understanding that rules of English grammar were inflexible as to their usage, and that such inane personal preferences would have no effect whatsoever on rules that have long existed.

Indeed, Doyle is a weird sort of "him" - but he's a "him" nonetheless and those who'd bend to utilising such grammatical travesties to accommodate Doyle's wishes demonstrate as being as intellectually-deluded (grammar-wise) as he is.

Comment 6 (7879) by OJB on 2025-04-13 at 21:59:29:

Yeah, I understand how the use of "their" can be annoying, but it has been a sort of correct use for many years. According to the Oxford Dictionary: "The word they (with its counterparts them, their, and themselves) as a singular pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified gender has been used since at least the 14th century."

Of course, referring to a person as "them" where you don't know their gender, and referring to a person that way, where you do but they prefer to not acknowledge it, are two different things.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.